Sheriff Cannot Be Held Liable in Individual Capacity for Allegedly Improper Conditions of Civil Detention

In King v. County of Los Angeles, published March 12, 2018, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part summary judgment granted to the defendant county and its sheriff.  While awaiting adjudication of an involuntary commitment petition under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, the plaintiff was incarcerated in a county jail for eight years.  For more than six of those years, he was confined in administrative segregation with criminal detainees.  He was required to wear a red jumpsuit that identified him as a SVP detainee.  He was attacked by fellow inmates, allegedly because of the red suit.  He was eventually transferred to a mental hospital, with more favorable conditions, until he passed away.  During his confinement in jail, he brought this suit, alleging his confinement violated substantive due process.  The defendants contended he was appropriately imprisoned due to his violent tendencies.  The plaintiff contested those facts.  The district court concluded that there was a legitimate, non-punitive ground for imprisoning him in the jail under the challenged conditions.

The 9th Circuit reversed summary judgment for the county and for the sheriff in his official capacity.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a civil detainee cannot be subjected to conditions that amount to punishment.  Confinement conditions are presumably punitive if they are identical, similar to, or more restrictive than those in which criminal counterparts are held.  They are also presumed punitive if a detainee awaiting adjudication under SVPA is detained under conditions more restrictive than those who have been committed under SVPA.  Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, both presumptions applied.  There was a triable issue of fact on whether there was a legitimate, non-punitive ground for the conditions of confinement. 

There was, however, no evidence that the sheriff supervised the day-to-day operation of the jail, or was personally involved in the plaintiff's confinement.  The district court therefore properly granted him summary judgment.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Pollak, Vida & Barer

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading