Case Name: Jerry Lee NEDD v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-06-11
Citations: 281 So. 2d 131
Docket Number: No. 52073
Parties: Jerry Lee NEDD v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS.
Judges: BARHAM and TATE, JJ., dissent and assign written reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 281
Pages: 131–136

Head Matter:
Jerry Lee NEDD v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS.
No. 52073.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 11, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1973.
Law Offices of Steven R. Plotkin, Owen J. Bradley, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Stanford O. Bardwell, Jr., Ass’t Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
DIXON, Justice.
Jerry Lee Nedd brings this action for damages for injuries suffered at the hands of a fellow inmate in the Louisiana State Penitentiary.
There was judgment rejecting plaintiff's demand in the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. 255 So.2d 492.
Nedd's claim for damages is based on the failure of the State to keep him sepa rated from McKinley Peterson, the man who injured him. In 1958, Nedd was injured in Angola in an attack by another inmate. While he was lying in his bed Nedd was struck in the head with a piece of pipe. Nedd did not see his assailant. However, McKinley Peterson pleaded guilty to the aggravated battery and received a sentence of five years.
Nedd and Peterson were in and out of jail and prison from 1958 until Nedd returned to Angola in 1967. Nedd contends that he was afraid that McKinley Peterson, resentful for having received an additional five years as a result of the 1958 battery, would do additional harm to him if the opportunity arose. Nedd testified that he learned Peterson's location upon arriving at Angola in February, 1967, and requested, before the classification board, that he be sent to a different camp.
The classification board did not have before it a record of the 1958 incident. The evidence is conflicting concerning what Nedd told the classification board. Nedd contends that he informed the board of his fear of Peterson. His testimony is not supported by other witnesses.
Nevertheless, Nedd was not assigned to the same area where Peterson was located.
Subsequently, in November of 1967, Nedd was transferred to the same camp where Peterson happened to be located. Nedd contends that upon learning of his impending transfer, he attempted to talk with Major Bryan, chief of security. But Nedd himself admitted that he did not explain to Major Bryan the reason for his fear, and was told that he must go where he was sent.
The only witnesses called by the plaintiff were Major Bryan on cross-examination and Nedd himself. Nedd testified that there had been no communication between him and Peterson between 1958 and January 27, 1968, the day of the altercation with Peterson. The only reason he expressed for fearing Peterson was the natural (in Nedd's opinion) resentment Peterson would feel for having received a five year sentence for his attack upon Nedd nine years earlier.
The only basis for Nedd's claim against the State is its failure to separate him from Peterson. If we assume that the State, through its officials at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, should have known everything Nedd knew (Nedd's fear and the reason for his fear) we cannot hold that the State would have been under an obligation to separate Nedd from Peterson.
The evidence in this record does not establish a reasonable basis for placing prison officials on notice that Nedd was in danger from Peterson. The record before us establishes that fights occurred at the penitentiary on a daily basis; knifings, cuttings and stabbings on a weekly basis; that frequently, some men who have fought, cut and stabbed each other later live harmoniously in the prison population. Major Bryan testified that if he had known what Nedd said he told the classification board, he would not necessarily have separated Nedd and Peterson.
In addition, the record before us is wholly insufficient to establish Nedd's contention that he was attacked without provocation by Peterson, motivated by revenge for the five year sentence after the 1958 attack.
Nedd was an habitual offender. Almost all of the testimony he gave was contradicted. Other evidence in the record, just as believable as Nedd's testimony, indicates that the altercation was not an unprovoked attack by Peterson. Other evidence also indicates that Nedd and Peterson had been together frequently during the years that intervened between the first attack and the last. For several months they were in the Orleans Parish prison. There is evidence that they played cards together in the parish prison and in the penitentiary. There is evidence that Nedd stabbed Peterson in the shoulder just a few weeks before the altercation of January 27, 1968, and had argued with him for more than thirty minutes on the day of the fight.
Nedd claimed that he was attacked without cause by Peterson, who was wielding a cane knife. Nedd claims that he lost some fingers in an effort to defend himself with a bed board. Peterson and another convict witness testified that Nedd started the fight, cutting Peterson in the hand without provocation. Four convicts were involved in the altercation. All four were cut.
It is not possible to tell where the truth lies from this record.
The Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that plaintiff failed to establish that the State had abrogated the standard of care incumbent upon it for the protection of prisoners in its custody.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed at plaintiff's cost.
BARHAM and TATE, JJ., dissent and assign written reasons.