Opinion ID: 4543067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims against the County

Text: As to the County, Plaintiffs again identify two conditions which, they argue, pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates at the Jail. First, they argue that the design of the Jail makes it difficult to monitor inmates in cells, 8 Because Plaintiffs failed to show that the challenged conditions pose a substantial risk of serious harm, we need not also consider whether the Jail Supervisors acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. 9 Absent any violated right, we need not support our qualified immunity conclusion by also considering whether “the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct.” Melton, 841 F.3d at 1221. 18 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 19 of 23 meaning that in-cell assaults may go undetected. Second, they argue that the Jail is underfunded and understaffed, which makes it impractical for the officers to conduct rounds more frequently than once per hour. A county is liable under § 1983 if one of its “customs, practices, or policies” was the “moving force” behind a constitutional injury. Barnett v. MacArthur, 956 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020). To prevail on such a claim, “a plaintiff must show: (1) that his constitutional rights were violated; (2) that the [County] had a custom or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that constitutional right; and (3) that the policy or custom caused the violation.” McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)). Again, Plaintiffs have failed to show that Grochowski’s “constitutional rights were violated.”
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.
20 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 21 of 23 Plaintiffs next argue that the County failed to fund the Jail adequately, leaving the Jail understaffed. Plaintiffs argue that the Jail’s staffing levels accommodated only hourly rounds and caused the Jail to close one of its housing units, which remained closed at the time of Grochowski’s death. Plaintiffs argue that these conditions posed a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates at the Jail. Again, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Jail’s funding and staffing levels fall below constitutional minima. As described above, the constitution does not require continuous observation of double-celled inmates. The record shows that the Jail had sufficient staff to perform regular, hourly rounds. Staffing levels were also sufficient to comply with the recommendation from the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association that two guards—one in the control tower and one on the floor— monitor each housing unit. The record also shows that, notwithstanding the closure of one of the Jail’s housing units, the Jail was able to house inmates according to its design, with two inmates per cell. There is no evidence that the Jail had to resort to triple-celling inmates as a result of the housing unit closure. Nor is there any evidence that, had the additional housing unit been open at the time of Grochowski’s death, the Jail would have opted to single-cell any inmates that ordinarily would have been double-celled. And, of course, even had some 21 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 22 of 23 inmates been single-celled, there is no evidence that Brooks or Grochowski would have been among those inmates. The record does show that both Sheriff Kimbrough and Sheriff Tuggle requested additional funding from the County in order to increase staffing and thereby increase efficiency and safety at the Jail. But Plaintiffs have failed to show that the existing funding and staffing levels posed a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates at the Jail. Again, Plaintiffs have failed to show that either the Jail’s design or its funding and staffing levels violated Grochowski’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Therefore, the County is entitled to summary judgment. 10