“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A man civilly confined to a state prison pre-trial filed suit to recover damages for serious harm caused to him by inmates who the prison failed to control.
What happened in this case?
Luther Poynter was arrested for civil contempt and taken pre-trial to Barren County Detention Center (BCDC) in Kentucky. He was placed in a cell with two convicted inmates, who promptly attacked him for no apparent reason and caused serious injuries. Poynter suffered traumatic brain injury, is partially paralyzed on his right side, struggles with short-term memory, must use a wheelchair, and must live in an assisted living facility. The attackers were in a general population cell with no safeguards, despite a history of violence by them in the prison.
Poynter’s sister filed suit on behalf of her brother against BCDC for deliberate indifference and failure to guard against the violence and injury that Poynter suffered. A key issue was the proper standard to be used in evaluating Poynter’s claim: must he prove that subjectively, jail officials recognized a serious risk of harm and were deliberately indifferent to it, or is it enough to demonstrate objectively that such a risk existed in light of the violent record of the two attacking inmates. A district court found on summary judgment for BCDC, but on appeal to the Sixth Circuit, a three-judge panel held that “sufficient evidence” was presented on behalf of Poynter for a jury to conclude that he had established a claim of deliberate indifference. The full Sixth Circuit, however, decided to reconsider the case en banc.
In September, Trump judge Chad Readler wrote a 10-7 en banc decision in Poynter v Shirley that reversed the panel ruling and held that Poynter was entitled to absolutely no damages, and that the lower court should reconsider the case using what it considered the proper subjective standard. The majority noted that a finding of liability is less likely under the subjective standard. Trump judges Thapar, Bush, Larsen, Nalbandian, Murphy, and Hermandorfer joined the majority opinion, as did George W Bush judges Sutton, Griffin and Kethledge. Bill Clinton judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote the dissent, joined in full or in part by George W Bush judge Helene White, Clinton judge Eric Clay, and Biden judges Davis, Mathis, Bloomekatz, and Ritz
Why did Judge Moore and six others dissent?
The primary basis for the dissent was the strong view that the objective rather than the subjective standard should prevail in cases involving injury to confined people not yet convicted of a crime, as the majority of other circuits that have considered the issue have held. Judge Moore carefully analyzed the issue and past precedent, finding that the standard for non-convicted people under the Fourteenth Amendment is and should be clearly distinct from the more demanding standard for convicted people under the Eighth Amendment. The majority’s contrary view, she concluded, improperly rests “on its policy preferences” since the majority apparently believes that the objective standard would be “too ineffective at curbing liability” of prison officials.
Why is this decision harmful?
The en banc decision by Trump judge Readler and supported by the other Trump judges who voted in the Sixth Circuit will obviously harm Luther Poynter, whose representatives will need to prove that prison officials are liable for the severe harm he suffered under the court’s subjective standard. The case also set a bad precedent for liability of prison officials for injury caused t people not convicted of a crime throughout the Sixth Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. In addition, the ruling illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.