A Jefferson County sheriff’s deputy cannot be held liable for failing to prevent an aggressive inmate from attacking another man in the county jail, a federal judge decided last month.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak acknowledged certain circumstances in which a prisoner can sue officials for not taking steps to stop inmate-on-inmate violence. However, the specific details leading up to Kenneth Elliott’s assault did not fit into any of the categories established by the federal appellate courts.

“Plaintiff has not identified, nor has the Court been able to find, any precedent from the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit (Court of Appeals) holding a prison official liable for an inmate’s injury at the hands of another inmate who was displaying signs of mental instability, but with no history of violence toward other inmates or jail staff,” Varholak wrote in an Oct. 3 order.

Representing himself in court, Elliott initially filed several claims related to his incarceration in the Jeffco jail. He alleged his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by jail officials’ refusal to provide adequate mental health treatment or to care for his physical conditions. Elliott also accused the jail of creating an unsafe and unsanitary environment in the kitchen where he worked, and alleged unsafe housing conditions due to “scalding hot water.”

A different federal judge dismissed those claims in January of this year, finding Elliott had not sufficiently shown jail officials knew about a serious risk of harm and disregarded it, which is the legal standard for holding corrections officers liable for Eighth Amendment claims.

However, Elliott was allowed to proceed on a single claim against Deputy William Martinez, who allegedly failed to protect Elliott from a known risk of inmate violence.

On the night of Aug. 17, 2021, Elliott claimed Martinez heard on multiple occasions that one detainee was acting “unusual and aggressive” toward others. 

“This inmate roamed freeley (sic) all night carrying a broom stick and acting in a dangerous manner,” Elliott wrote. “Also the inmate had specifically told deputy Martinez he was hearing voices and he requested to be moved. This did not happen.”

Around 5 a.m. on Aug. 18, detainees allegedly asked Martinez if anything was going to happen about the aggressive inmate, to which Martinez responded, “Day shift is going to have to deal with it.”

After Elliott got his breakfast and was on his way to his bunk, the aggressive inmate reportedly threw a chair into Elliott’s chest, then hit Elliott with his fists. Elliott wrote that he fended off his aggressor, but had to miss work for two days because he injured his neck. Afterward, his anxiety affected his ability to sleep.

Elliott filed a grievance with the jail, but the response was “shockingly inadequate and unprofessional,” and ultimately “nothing was done.”

In March, Martinez moved to dismiss Elliott’s Eighth Amendment claim against him. He argued he was entitled to qualified immunity, which generally shields government employees from liability unless they violate a person’s clearly-established legal rights.

Martinez contended Elliott had failed to allege the deputy knew of a substantial risk the aggressive inmate would assault Elliott, and that Martinez had subsequently ignored that risk.

“Mr. Elliott has not alleged that the Inmate threatened him or that Mr. Elliott relayed such threats to Dep. Martinez prior to the Incident, that he was targeted as part of a group, or that he was placed in the same cell as the Inmate,” wrote the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office.

Elliott did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

Varholak declined to answer whether Elliott had established through his allegations that Martinez violated his constitutional rights. Instead, the magistrate judge focused on whether prior court decisions had clearly established Martinez’s actions, if true, were unreasonable. Varholak independently reviewed the case law and found that any violation of Elliott’s rights was not clearly established.

The appellate courts have recognized corrections officials can be held liable for inmate-on-inmate violence when there are direct threats leading up to the assault, when the victim belongs to a group that is at elevated risk of attack, or when the perpetrator has a history of violent conduct.

Because Elliott’s allegations fell outside of those categories, Varholak concluded Martinez was entitled to qualified immunity.

Varholak dismissed the claim, but permitted Elliott 21 days to amend his lawsuit with additional detail about the alleged constitutional violation. Elliott did not respond.

The case is Elliot v. Martinez.