From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 27, 1973
487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973)

Summary

holding that state officials must exercise reasonable care to prevent inmate assaults

Summary of this case from Snyder v. Blankenship

Opinion

No. 72-1576.

Argued June 7, 1973.

Decided July 27, 1973.

Robert Plotkin, Washington, D.C. (court-appointed counsel), for appellant.

William A, Carter, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., on brief), for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.


In Woodhous v. Virginia, Mem. Dec. No. 15,075 (4th Cir., July 7, 1971), we vacated an order dismissing Woodhous' complaint and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Woodhous, a prisoner, was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because the state was not adequately protecting him from violence and sexual assaults by other prisoners. The district court appointed counsel for Woodhous, and, after hearing testimony from Woodhous and two prison officials, found no violation of his constitutional rights We reverse because we believe the district court unduly restricted the protection afforded a prisoner by the eighth amendment.

Briefly, the district court found that Woodhous had not been attacked and that he did not fear attack. The court concluded, therefore, that Woodhous had not proved his cause of action. Because the case was not a class action, the court ruled that Woodhous could not complain on behalf of young inmates who had been sexually assaulted. Finally, observing that guards were shorthanded through lack of funds, the court concluded that the prison officials were doing what they could with the money at their disposal. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint.

While occasional, isolated attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, Penn v. Oliver, 351 F. Supp. 1292 (E.D.Va. 1972), confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable. A prisoner had a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief. Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1971). In addition to being a potential victim, Woodhous was subjected to the danger of reprisal when he went to the aid of a younger prisoner who was being sexually assaulted.

Woodhous also complains that he was denied the right to summon six other prisoners who could have enlarged on his description of prison discipline. The lawyer who was then representing him declined to summon these witnesses because Woodhous was not involved in the attacks they had seen. Over Woodhouse' objection, the court acquiesced in the lawyer's decision. The exclusion of this evidence was error. Other prisoners' description of attacks is relevant to determine whether the peril about which Woodhous complains is constant and imminent.

Woodhous was represented by different counsel on appeal.

Although we are remanding the case, we not that it may not be necessary to conduct another hearing. At oral argument, we were told that similar complaints from other prisoners are now being considered in a consolidated action, Stotler v. Brown, No. 292-70-R, which is pending in the district court Relief, if appropriate in that case, may inure to the benefit of Woodhous and eliminate the need for further proceedings in his case. On the other hand, if the outcome of that case does not afford him relief, he should be granted a new trial and allowed to present the testimony of several witnesses about the danger of attack from other prisoners. In determining whether to grant relief, the court should ascertain: (1) whether there is a pervasive risk of harm to inmates from other prisoners, and, if so, (2) whether the officials are exercising reasonable care to prevent prisoners from intentionally harming others or from creating an unreasonable risk of harm. See restatement (Second) of Torts § 320 (1965).

The judgment of the district court is vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jul 27, 1973
487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973)

holding that state officials must exercise reasonable care to prevent inmate assaults

Summary of this case from Snyder v. Blankenship

formulating reasonable care standard in reliance on Restatement (Second) of Torts

Summary of this case from Moore v. Winebrenner

In Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973), we held that a prisoner has a constitutional right "to be reasonably protected from the constant threat of violence and sexual assault from his fellow inmates...."

Summary of this case from Withers v. Levine

In Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia (4th Cir. 1973), 487 F.2d 889, 890, we canvassed the circumstances under which "threat of violence" or actual "sexual assaults" would rise to the dignity of a violation of the Eighth Amendment's requirement of reasonable protection against unreasonable risk of harm in a prison environment.

Summary of this case from Hite v. Leeke

In Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973), we held, "A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief."

Summary of this case from Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections

implying prisoner's legitimate fear of attack may be sufficient to maintain failure to protect claim

Summary of this case from Jasmaine v. Gazoo

In Woodhous, the plaintiff produced competent evidence that he was incarcerated in a prison "where violence and terror reign."

Summary of this case from Owens v. Padula

noting that " prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates . . ."

Summary of this case from Holloway v. Wittry

In Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973), the court held that a prisoner has a right to be "protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates...". Id., at 890.

Summary of this case from Risner v. Duckworth, (N.D.Ind. 1983)

In Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973), the Court held that a prisoner has a right to be "protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates.

Summary of this case from Emory v. Duckworth, (N.D.Ind. 1983)

In Woodhous, the court articulated a two-step analysis to be employed when considering an Eighth Amendment challenge to a perceived risk of inmate harm.

Summary of this case from Dawson v. Kendrick

In Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973), the Fourth Circuit said that "[a] prisoner has a right, secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief."

Summary of this case from Ramos v. Lamm

In Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973), the court addressed the issue of whether a prisoner was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because the state failed to protect him from violence and sexual assaults by other prisoners.

Summary of this case from Snyder v. Blankenship
Case details for

Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Case Details

Full title:GENE WOODHOUS, APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jul 27, 1973

Citations

487 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

Doe v. District of Columbia

The Court then went on to say: See, e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290-91, 50…

Dawson v. Kendrick

Prisoners have the right, secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to be reasonably protected from…