Ronald F. Butera v. Jack L. Cottey, Sherriff of Marion County

Citations: 285 F.3d 601; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6070; 2002 WL 501034Docket: 01-2242

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 4, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ronald Butera filed a lawsuit against Marion County Sheriff Jack Cottey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deprivation of due process following a sexual assault by two detainees in the jail. The incident occurred on January 6, 1997, after Butera had previously reported threats from the assailants, Brian Mitchell and James Eskridge, to correctional officers and his mother. Despite these warnings, the Sheriff’s office had not removed him from the cellblock where the assault took place.

Butera described the assault, detailing that he was physically restrained and unable to call for help due to a towel covering his face. Following the assault, he was transferred to a different cellblock, where he again faced threats from another detainee. 

Sheriff Cottey had established policies aimed at protecting detainees, including a classification system for housing based on behavior and regular hourly inspections by correctional officers (referred to as "clock rounds") to monitor detainee safety. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Cottey, affirming that the policies in place did not constitute a deprivation of Butera's due process rights.

"Call cards" were provided in every cellblock, allowing detainees to communicate with correctional officers about safety concerns or problems. Officers collected these cards during their hourly rounds and monitored the cellblocks three times daily while distributing meals. Detainees could also leave their cellblocks for various appointments and were able to approach officers for assistance during these times. After being assaulted, Butera sued the Sheriff in the Southern District of Indiana, alleging inadequate housing and protection policies despite the Sheriff’s knowledge of a serious risk to his safety. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff, determining Butera did not provide enough evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

On appeal, Butera argued two points: 1) that he and his mother had given actual notice of his danger to the Sheriff or Jail personnel without any preventive action taken, and 2) that the Sheriff maintained inadequate policies despite being aware of the risk. The district court’s summary judgment was reviewed de novo, considering all facts in favor of Butera as the nonmoving party. A summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issues of material fact exist. As a pre-trial detainee, Butera's claim was analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects against "deliberate indifference" to safety. The Sheriff needed to be aware of a significant risk of harm but was not required to guarantee Butera's safety, and the mere existence of potentially better policies did not indicate deliberate indifference.

Butera must demonstrate that the Sheriff, rather than individual correctional officers, took deliberate actions causing the deprivation of federal rights. This requires proving that the Sheriff made a specific choice among alternatives that directly led to the injury due to a policy. An unconstitutional custom or policy can arise in three ways: (1) an express policy causing constitutional deprivation upon enforcement; (2) a widespread, permanent practice regarded as law despite lack of formal authorization; or (3) an allegation that a final policy-making authority caused the constitutional injury. Butera's claims are based on "deliberate indifference." If the Sheriff was aware of a significant risk of harm to Butera, either through direct notice from Butera and his mother or through the overall conditions in the Jail, and failed to implement adequate policies to mitigate that risk, he could be found deliberately indifferent.

Butera argues that the Sheriff or Jail personnel were made aware of a specific threat to him prior to the assault, citing a conversation with correctional officers in which he expressed fear and requested to be removed from his block. However, he did not specify the nature of the threat or who was involved. Additionally, Butera claims that a phone call from Rena to the Jail alerted the Sheriff to the risk of harm. Nevertheless, neither the conversation nor the phone call provided sufficient notice of a specific risk of serious harm, thus failing to establish the Sheriff’s deliberate indifference, as outlined in the precedent case Lewis v. Richards, where similar claims were dismissed due to lack of sufficient reporting of threats.

Prison officials were found not to be deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's safety because he failed to specifically request protection from the inmates involved in a second assault or to identify the gang members who had threatened him after a prior incident. The plaintiff's vague complaints about "problems in the block" and a need for removal did not constitute adequate notice of a specific threat, as he did not name the individuals involved or articulate the nature of the threats. Prior to the assault on January 6, 1997, the plaintiff admitted he had not reported any threats or assaults to jail personnel. Additionally, testimony indicated that no correctional officer witnessed any threats made against him.

Furthermore, a phone call made by a relative to the Jail about general threats did not provide the Sheriff with specific notice of harm to the plaintiff, as the threats were described in vague terms and were not directed at identifiable individuals. The lack of evidence that the person contacted was a policymaker meant that the Sheriff's liability could not be established under a respondeat superior theory.

The plaintiff also contended that the overall conditions at the Jail indicated inadequate detainee policies, citing a pattern of violence, including sexual assaults. However, he argued that this systemic violence demonstrated the Sheriff’s deliberate indifference due to policies that kept violent detainees together and infrequent patrols of the cellblock.

In Frake, the court evaluated whether the high incidence of suicides among detainees at Chicago detention facilities, along with the continued use of cells with horizontal cross-bars, constituted "deliberate indifference." The case involved Robert Frake, a pre-trial detainee who committed suicide by hanging from these cross-bars. His father alleged that the City was aware of the risk of suicides yet failed to remove the cross-bars, pointing to a total of 20 suicides and 163 attempts from December 1990 to November 1997 as evidence of this indifference. The court rejected this argument, stating that numbers alone do not establish deliberate indifference, especially when the City had implemented other safety measures, such as staff training and regular cell checks. Additionally, the City lacked knowledge of Frake's suicidal tendencies.

In a related case, Butera claimed that the Sheriff was aware of a substantial risk of harm due to violence in the Jail, citing Detective Summers' testimony about past fights and allegations of sexual assault. However, the court found no evidence that these incidents occurred specifically in cellblock 2-I, which undermined Butera's argument. The court referenced Strauss v. City of Chicago, indicating that mere complaints do not establish a pattern for liability under section 1983. Butera's case was further weakened by the absence of evidence of any sexual assaults in cellblock 2-I aside from his own incident. The court noted that the Sheriff had taken precautions against violence, including extensive training for correctional officers and monitoring practices that allowed for the identification and separation of problematic detainees.

Butera contends that the Sheriff should have adopted alternative safety measures, such as 24-hour video surveillance in the cellblocks, arguing that current policies were ineffective due to fear of retaliation among detainees and their tendency to conceal violent behavior. However, the court clarifies that the mere existence of potentially better policies does not equate to deliberate indifference on the Sheriff's part. Butera has not demonstrated a direct link between the Sheriff's policies and the alleged harmful behaviors, as detainees could still hide or dim lights regardless of surveillance. Additionally, Butera failed to prove that the Sheriff was aware of any substantial risk of harm prior to January 1997 or that any sexual assaults occurred in cellblock 2-I before that time. The Sheriff had implemented precautionary measures to mitigate detainee violence, leading the court to conclude that the Sheriff was not deliberately indifferent. Consequently, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff is affirmed. Judge Dillin's previous order regarding jail conditions does not bolster Butera's claims, as it pertains to conditions post-assault and supports the conclusion that the jail's housing policies were adequate.