Opinion ID: 4543067
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hourly Rounds

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that the Jail’s practice of performing hourly rounds is insufficient to supervise double-celled inmates and therefore poses a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates at the Jail. Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Constitution requires jail officials to conduct rounds more frequently than once per hour. To the contrary, the Jail Supervisors cite cases to demonstrate that hourly rounds are constitutionally adequate. In Cagle v. Sutherland, a jail official violated a consent decree from previous litigation that required hourly cell checks. 334 F.3d 980, 985 (11th Cir. 2003). That official let one hour and forty minutes elapse between cell checks and during that time an inmate died. Id. at 989. The court observed that the consent decree “did not establish a constitutional right to hourly jail checks.” Id. Cagle, then, suggests that even hourly cell checks are not constitutionally required. See also Popham v. City of Talladega, 908 F.2d 1561, 1565 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that jail officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff “cite[d] no cases for 17 Case: 18-14567 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 18 of 23 the proposition that deliberate indifference is demonstrated if prisoners are not seen by jailers at all times”). We recognize that Cagle and Popham addressed the subjective component of deliberate indifference rather than the objective component of a substantial risk of serious harm. Still, we think these cases support our conclusion here that the Jail’s practice of conducting hourly rounds is constitutionally adequate. Plaintiffs have failed to show that either the Jail’s classification process or its practice of hourly rounds pose a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates at the Jail. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to show that those conditions violated Grochowski’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 8 Absent any constitutional violation, the Jail Supervisors are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. 9