Opinion ID: 4543067
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jail Design

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the Jail’s design poses a substantial risk of harm to inmates at the Jail because corrections officers do not have a clear view into each cell from the central control towers. Plaintiffs note that each cell has a solid door with a small window, which is approximately six inches wide by two or two-and-a-half feet tall. From the central control towers, officers cannot clearly see the interior of a cell through the small window. This, Plaintiffs argue, puts inmates at a substantial risk of undetected in-cell assaults. 19 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 20 of 23 Plaintiffs’ position amounts to an argument that the constitution requires continuous observation of double-celled inmates. As described above, our precedent undermines that suggestion. See Cagle, 334 F.3d at 989; Popham, 908 F.2d at 1565. What’s more, the Jail’s design is consistent with national standards. Both the National Institute of Corrections and the American Corrections Association recommend only that officers in remote surveillance booths, like the control towers here, have a good view of cell fronts and walkways. Neither organization recommends that jails install large windows on cell doors to facilitate remote surveillance of a cell’s interior. To the contrary, the National Institute of Corrections notes that large windows on cell doors can raise problems such as privacy concerns and increased conflict between inmates who are intentionally housed separately. We also note that each cell is equipped with an emergency call button, which enables inmates to send an emergency signal to officers in the control tower. This would seem to mitigate risk associated with the small windows on cell doors. And, as discussed above, the Jail accounts for an inmate’s capacity for violence when making housing unit assignments. That, too, mitigates the risk of undetected in-cell assaults. Again, Plaintiffs have simply failed to show that the Jail’s design is constitutionally deficient.