Opinion ID: 1107969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Commissioner Thigpen and Superintendent Cabana

Text: Commissioner Morris Thigpen [4] and Superintendent Donald Cabana [5] were charged by law with the general supervision and management of the Department of Corrections and the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, respectively. This Court has recognized the discretionary nature of the position of superintendent at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Morgan v. Cook, 236 So.2d 749, 750 (Miss. 1970). See also Bogard v. Cook, 586 F.2d 399, 412 (5th Cir.1978). Though not expressly declared by statute, our law imposes upon the Commissioner and Superintendent, respectively, general duties of a supervisory and discretionary nature, for the medical care and treatment of prisoners. In Bogard the Court of Appeals predicted that Mississippi law would provide broad discretion to Parchman's superintendent based on the general acceptance of official immunity in Mississippi law, the Mississippi Supreme Court's explicit acknowledgement in Morgan of the breadth of discretion vested in the Parchman superintendent, the importance to Mississippi of attracting competent and energetic leadership at Parchman, and the persuasive intervening authority of Scheuer [ v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90, holding that qualified immunity is available to executive officers increasing in scope with the breadth of the officer's discretion and responsibilities predicated on the existence of reasonable grounds for belief formed at the time of the official's action, coupled with good faith belief that the action was proper] and its progeny. Bogard, 586 F.2d at 417. We this day formally declare that prediction correct. Since Morgan v. Cook the administrative structure of Mississippi's prison system has changed slightly. ( See former law, Section 47-5-25.) In Grantham v. Dept. of Corrections, 522 So.2d 219 (Miss. 1988), a suit by an injured person against the parole board, department of corrections, commissioner of corrections and members of the parole board, this Court held that the commissioner of corrections has substantial discretionary authority but none to grant or deny parole nor a duty to recommend for or against parole. Grantham, 522 So.2d at 224. His/her only duty vis-a-vis parole is to provide adequate support staff. The Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner because Grantham could not establish the requisite intentional tort or even that he acted substantially at variance with his authority. At least one recent federal case, however, has established a pierce in the shield of qualified immunity for prison officials. Jackson v. Hollowell, 714 F.2d 1372 (5th Cir.1983). And, the Supreme Court has announced: Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). See also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). In light of extensive litigation surrounding the icky conditions of Parchman [ Gates ], the Jackson v. Hollowell court had no problem determining that the defendants could not contend that Jackson's right to be free from inadequately screened trusty guards (one of whom destroyed Jackson's eye) was not established and well known. Jackson v. Hollowell, 714 F.2d at 1376. The Jackson court held that, because of the Gates directive, the superintendent had a duty under state and constitutional law to protect prisoners from trusty guards and that the superintendent breached that duty and his breach was the proximate cause of Jackson's injury. In light of Jackson, we note Gates' direction that prisoners be protected from unreasonable exposure to contagious diseases. These considerations generally in mind, we return to the content of the qualified immunity defense asserted by Commissioner Thigpen and Superintendent Cabana. If those individuals have committed an intentional tort toward McFadden, they enjoy no immunity defense. See Anderson v. Nosser, 456 F.2d 835, 840-41 (5th Cir.1972). Further, if it may be found that these defendants greatly or substantially exceeded their authority, they enjoy no immunity. The complaint charges that Commissioner Thigpen and Superintendent Cabana were grossly negligent in allowing McFadden to be housed with an inmate with active tuberculosis. The complaint further charges that these two defendants acted wilfully and with a wanton and reckless disregard for plaintiff's safety, after discovering that Frederick Marks had active tuberculosis and was housed in the Unit 30(C) Building, B Zone with the plaintiff. Unlike the board members, these two defendants did have direct authority regarding the day-to-day operations of the Penitentiary. Moreover, these two defendants have lawful authority regarding the assignment, placement, housing and classification of persons incarcerated at the Penitentiary. If it may be shown that the Commissioner of Corrections or the Superintendent of the Penitentiary intentionally caused McFadden to be exposed to the communicable disease of tuberculosis or if it may be shown that either of these two defendants acted with such gross neglect or callous indifference to the well being of McFadden such that their conduct may be fairly described as constructively intentional, they enjoy no immunity to suit. Anderson v. Nosser, 456 F.2d 840-41. If it may further be shown that any such acts or omissions of these defendants proximately caused plaintiff to contract the communicable disease of tuberculosis, he is entitled to recover. Estelle v. Gamble, supra . Seen in this light, having in mind the standards enumerated above, we cannot say that it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that McFadden can prove no set of facts in support of his claim against Commissioner Thigpen or Superintendent Cabana which would entitle him to relief. The Circuit Court erred when it dismissed so much of the complaint as charged defendants Thigpen and Cabana with intentional and/or constructively intentional and/or grossly negligent actions that proximately caused his injury.