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

Heading: Classification Process

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the Jail’s classification process poses a substantial risk of serious harm because corrections officers do not perform the security screening in face-to-face interviews with inmates and because the Initial Classification Form does not account for violent misdemeanors. As a result, they argue, violent inmates can be double-celled with non-violent inmates, which can lead to in-cell assaults. Plaintiffs argue that if the security screening had been conducted in person and if it had accounted for violent misdemeanors, the Jail Supervisors would have identified Brooks as being potentially violent, particularly in light of his 2009 conviction for misdemeanor fighting. Plaintiffs have failed to show, however, that the Constitution requires in-person security screenings or consideration of violent misdemeanors. 6 We assume that the Jail Supervisors are officers with some supervisory authority at the Jail. Had Plaintiffs shown that Grochowski’s constitutional rights were violated, which they have not done, they would also have needed to show that the Jail Supervisors either “personally participate[d] in the alleged constitutional violation or [that] there is a causal connection between actions of the [Jail Supervisors] and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990). Because we conclude that no constitutional violation occurred, we do not reach that issue. See Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1264 n.7 (11th Cir. 2007) (“We need not address the Appellant’s claims of municipal or supervisory liability since we conclude no constitutional violation occurred.”). 15 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 16 of 23 Plaintiffs cite case law for the proposition that jail classification systems must consider an inmate’s capacity for violence. See Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1308–09 (5th Cir. 1974). 7 However, the Jail’s classification process does consider an inmate’s capacity for violence. The classification process begins with a health screening, which is conducted according to best practices issued by the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare. The healthcare screening takes place in a face-to-face interview, during which a healthcare provider asks the inmate if he has any history of violent behavior or victimization. The healthcare provider also assesses the inmate’s appearance, attitude, mood, and affect. Those measures assist the healthcare provider in determining, in the first instance, whether it is appropriate to place inmates in the general population. A corrections officer then conducts a security screening based on objective criteria, such as the inmate’s current charges, history of violent felony convictions, and any disciplinary records from previous detentions at the Jail. Those objective criteria are collected on an Initial Classification Form, which is endorsed by the National Institute of Corrections. The Initial Classification Form functions as a decision tree based on those objective criteria, and it 7 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981. Id. at 1209. 16 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 17 of 23 adequately considers an inmate’s capacity for violence in determining whether the inmate should be placed in minimum-, medium-, or maximum-security housing. Plaintiffs have simply failed to show that the Jail’s classification system does not adequately consider an inmate’s capacity for violence.