In Horton v. Cockrell (70 F 3rd; 1995 US. App.) the issue of maintaining the safety of inmates from one another was affirmed by the 5th circuit. The case revolved around the circumstances of the housing of Billy Wayne Horton in the Clements unit of the Texas department of Criminal Justice. Before being transferred he had filed an informa pauperis suit in the Eastern District of Texas. While the case was pending he was transferred to Clements which was in the Northern District of Texas.
Once there he had two altercations with another inmate which culminated into a supplemental complaint to the pending suit. He contended that TDCJ failed to protect him from another inmate.
On Horton's first day Ronald Jackson approached him and threatened to assault him unless Horton agreed to pay what he termed as extortion money. Horton immediately reported the incident by filing a grievance to the warden that Jackson was assaultive. The warden refused to do anything but told Horton to speak with his counselor. Horton told the warden that he had talked with the counselor who told him Horton that he could not request that another be moved from a cellblock. Horton made the complaint to the warden to make the warden aware of the problems with Jackson. The warden dismissed Horton with no relief.
Horton and Jackson were returned to the same section. Jackson continued to threaten Horton and he filed the second complaint. After the complaint was filed Jackson assaulted another inmate and threatened to assault a group of inmates but did not as a guard walked up. Horton filed a third complaint.
Several days passed when Jackson found Horton drinking water from a fountain. Jackson hit Horton in the eye. Both were charged with fighting. During a subsequent hearing the officer refused to hear any evidence that Horton was merely protecting himself. Horton and Jackson had no other contact with each other.
However, Horton filed the supplemental to his original complaint in the court system. During the following proceedings motions to dismiss were filed by TDCJ which were met with objections being filed by Horton. Eventually the hearing court dismissed TDCJ from the complaint citing it as being frivolous.
Horton appealed citing that he had received injuries and the TDCJ failed to protect him. The appellate court agreed with Horton stating: Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Not every injury suffered by a prisoner at the hands of another rises to the level of a constitutional violation, however. The plaintiff prisoner must prove both that he is incarcerated under conditions "posing a substantial risk of serious harm," and that the prison official's state of mind is one of "deliberate indifference" to the prisoner's health or safety.
Our society does not tolerate extortion inside or outside of prison, and also does not tolerate physical assaults. Although Horton threw the first punch in the initial altercation with Jackson, he arguably did so in self defense, because of the alleged threats of extortion and assault. Furthermore, the second assault by Jackson at the water cooler was apparently unprovoked. Although Horton did not sustain serious injuries, he could have been severely injured either in one of those two altercations, or at a later time. This is arguably the type of "imminent danger" against which a prison official must protect. Thus, Horton's complaint meets its burden for the first element of the Eighth Amendment claim. Horton v. Cockrell (70 F 3rd; 1995 US. App.)
The 5th District remanded the case for further proceedings. The importance of taking a complaint and conducting an investigation is clearly shown here. We cannot take complaints and not follow through. In this case we see that due process was not followed as it should be. Overturned was a case that could have been easily investigated and the appropriate action taken. This is a lesson all can learn from.
