Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_05-cv-00005/USCOURTS-alnd-1_05-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

HOLLIE LEDBETTER, an individual; )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

CALHOUN COUNTY, ALABAMA, )CIVIL ACTION NO.

an Alabama county; )

CALHOUN COUNTY COMMISSION, ) 05-HS-0005

the governing body of Calhoun County; )

LARRY AMERSON, an individual; )

BRUCE BARTLIFF, an individual; )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HANSON, )

an individual; )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MADDOX, )

an individual; )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CLEMMONS, )

an individual; )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WALKER, )

an individual; )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARITATE, )

an individual; and, )

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BURCHFIELD, )

an individual; )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant

Calhoun County. The Complaint in this case alleges the use of excessive force

against, and the assaulting and raping of, a pregnant 19 year old woman while

she was incarcerated in the Calhoun County Jail. Complaint, at ¶ 19. The

FILED

 2005 Apr-20 AM 09:31

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 8
2

Complaint alleges that Calhoun County and the Calhoun County Commission

were responsible for properly funding the operations of the jail and providing

proper facilities, security and redundant security forces available to properly

protect, monitor and prevent the Plaintiff from being mistreated. Complaint,

at ¶ 35. In addition, the Complaint alleges that Defendants were responsible for

properly inspecting and/or holding special meetings at the jail after having

knowledge of improper funding, but before Plaintiff’s constitutional violations.

Complaint, at ¶ 36. The Complaint alleges that “knowledge [of improper

funding] was evident to Calhoun County and the County Commission from

comments [made] by the [jail’s] Sheriff (albeit under oath or otherwise), other

lawsuits and other inmate complaints and injuries.” Complaint, at ¶ 36.

Against the County and the County Commission, the Complaint alleges

only violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 (Count I). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Motion to Dismiss should not be granted unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99,

2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (emphasis added). The threshold for a complaint to

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 8
3

survive a motion to dismiss is "exceedingly low." Ancata v. Prison Health

Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir.1985) (quoting Quality Foods de

Centro America, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corp., S.A.,

711 F.2d 989, 995 (11th Cir.1983)). “When a federal court reviews the

sufficiency of a complaint before the reception of any evidence either by

affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one.” Scheuer v.

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)(overruled on

other grounds). “The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but

whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed

it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and

unlikely but that is not the test. Moreover, it is well established that in passing

on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the

subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the

complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.” Id. (emphasis

added). 

III. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiff’s Claims Against Calhoun County and Calhoun

County Commission are Funding Claims, and are Not For the

Failure to Manage the Day-to-Day Operations Of the Jail.

In its Motion to Dismiss, Section IA, Defendants Calhoun County and

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 3 of 8
4

Calhoun County Commission argue that they cannot be held liable for the dayto-day operations of the jail. Defendant’s Brief, at 2-3. The Plaintiff states that

she does not contend that the Defendants are liable for day-to-day operations

of the jail. Related to these Defendants, the Complaint reads as follows:

34. For example, Defendants Calhoun County and the Calhoun

County Commission took Ms. Ledbetter into their custody at the

Calhoun County Jail; and therefore, had an affirmative duty to

ensure that its jail facility was properly financially funded and

supported.

35. Acting under color of law, Calhoun County and the

Calhoun County Commission failed to properly fund the

operations of the jail and to provide proper facilities, security and

redundant security forces available to properly protect, monitor

and prevent Plaintiff from being raped, mistreated and mishandled

in violation of her constitutional rights. 

36. In addition, Calhoun County and the County Commission

failed to properly inspect and/or hold special meetings at the jail

after having knowledge of such improper funding, prior to

Plaintiff’s constitutional violations. This knowledge was evident

to Calhoun County and the County Commission from comments

by the jails Sheriff (albeit under oath or otherwise), other lawsuits

and other inmate complaints and injuries. 

37. By failing to properly support and fund the jail,

Defendants created an environment that was deliberately

indifferent to the constitutional rights afforded Ms. Ledbetter

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Complaint, at ¶¶ 34-37 (emphasis added).

Regarding this issue, the Eleventh Circuit has held:

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 4 of 8
5

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual

punishment. The Supreme Court says that prison officials will be

liable for violating the Eighth Amendment when they are

deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to

inmates. Put differently, officials, to be liable, must be aware of

a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates and not take

reasonable measures to alleviate that risk. See Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1982-83, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

A local government can be directly responsible for a

constitutional violation due to its acts or omissions. See Pembaur

v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1298, 89

L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) ("a municipality may be liable under section

1983 for a single decision by its legislative body...") (citing Owen

v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d

673 (1980); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101

S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). A local government,

however, will be liable under section 1983 only for acts for which

the local government is actually responsible. Turquitt v. Jefferson

Cty., Ala., 137 F.3d 1285, 1287 (11th Cir.1998). Alabama

counties have no responsibility for daily operation of county jails

and no authority to dictate how jails are run, but the County is

charged with erecting and maintaining jails. Id. at 1289-90.

Therefore, the County will have violated Plaintiffs' Eighth

Amendment rights if its failure to maintain the Jail constituted

deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to the

prisoners.

Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the physical

conditions of the Jail, the maintenance of which was the County's

responsibility, presented an objective substantial risk of serious

harm to the inmates. They allege the locks on the doors to cells

did not work, preventing inmates from being locked down. The

structure of the Jail was so dilapidated that inmates could fashion

weapons from pieces of the building. And no video or audio

surveillance system was in place to check on the inmates.

Plaintiffs allege that the County was aware of the

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 5 of 8
6

conditions. Plaintiffs say these things put the County on notice: a

report from the Alabama Department of Corrections filed in

February 1996; faultfinding inspection reports from several state

agencies; complaints from prisoners; a letter (outlining dangerous

conditions) from a prisoner-rights advocacy organization; and a

complaint filed in a lawsuit on 14 May 1996, seeking declaratory

and injunctive relief on behalf of the prisoners in the Jail.

We accept that conditions in a jail facility that allow

prisoners ready access to weapons, fail to provide an ability to

lock down inmates, and fail to allow for surveillance of inmates

pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates. In addition,

Plaintiffs' allegations that the County received many reports of the

conditions but took no remedial measures is sufficient to allege

deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm faced

by inmates in the Jail.

Plaintiffs' complaint also properly alleges the causal

connection between the County's failure to maintain the Jail and

the assaults on Marsh and Owens. For example, that the locks on

the doors to cells did not work prevented the isolation of prisoners

from each other and gave attackers ready access to Plaintiffs. We

conclude that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a constitutional

violation by Butler County to survive the County's motion to

dismiss.

Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1026 -1028 (11 Cir. 2001). th

In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that Calhoun County and the

Calhoun County Commission “failed to properly fund the operations of the jail

and to provide proper facilities, security and redundant security forces

available to properly protect, monitor and prevent Plaintiff from being raped,

mistreated and mishandled in violation of her constitutional rights.” Complaint,

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 6 of 8
7

at ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Like in Marsh, here it is alleged that the Plaintiff was

not properly monitored by surveillance and/or the proper number of jailers. It

is contended that such inadequate funding allowed Plaintiff to be raped and

abused. 

The Complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of inadequate

funding from statements made by its County Sheriff (albeit under oath or

otherwise), but did not make an effort to more properly fund its Jail.

Complaint, at ¶¶ 36-37. Such actions, it is alleged, created an environment that

was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to Hollie

Ledbetter, Plaintiff. 

What is missing in this case, however, that was not missing in Marsh, is

the allegation in the Complaint of a direct causal connection between the

wrongdoing alleged by the Plaintiff, and the injury. While Plaintiff does state

that the Defendant’s actions “created an environment that was deliberately

indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm,” she does not state that the

County’s action’s directly led to her injuries. By contrast, in Marsh, the Court

noted specifically that the Plaintiff “properly alleges the causal connection

between the County's failure to maintain the Jail and the assaults. For example,

that the locks on the doors to cells did not work prevented the isolation of

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 7 of 8
8

prisoners from each other and gave attackers ready access to Plaintiffs.” The

Court has found no such similar allegation in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due to be

GRANTED. As pled, Plaintiff does not state a cause of action under Alabama

law related to Defendants’ failure to properly fund and inspect the Jail after

knowledge of such need. The holding of Marsh substantiates that point.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s brief makes it clear that her entire case against the County is

based on the inadequate funding allegations as pled in the Complaint. For the

above stated reasons the Motion to Dismiss of the Defendant will be

GRANTED.

DONE this 19 day of April, 2005. th

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00005-VEH Document 24 Filed 04/20/05 Page 8 of 8