Failure to Protect

When jail officials know an inmate faces a substantial risk of serious harm from other inmates and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it, they violate the Constitution. This includes housing vulnerable inmates with known predators, ignoring threats, and failing to intervene in violence.

We prove knowledge through: documented threats between inmates, classification records showing incompatible housing, prior altercations between the same inmates, the victim's requests for protective custody, grievances, inmate letters to family, and staff's general awareness of gang dynamics or the attacker's violent history.

A formal request isn't required. Officials can be liable if the danger was obvious from other sources: the attacker's known violent history, clear gang affiliations, size disparity, or statements overheard by staff. Courts look at whether a reasonable officer would have recognized the risk.

Yes. Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, jails must protect inmates from violence by other inmates when officials know of the risk. This includes proper classification, housing decisions, supervision, and intervention. Deliberate indifference to known dangers violates the Constitution.

Classification is the process of evaluating inmates' security risk, vulnerability, and housing needs. Proper classification separates violent offenders from vulnerable inmates, keeps gang rivals apart, and identifies those needing protective custody. Failures in classification often lead to preventable violence.

The question isn't just about the moment of attack—it's about the decisions that led to it. Did officials house incompatible inmates together? Ignore prior threats? Fail to conduct proper classification? The failure to protect often occurs in housing decisions made days or weeks before the attack.

Yes. LGBTQ+ inmates face significantly higher rates of sexual assault and violence in custody. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and constitutional standards, jails must take their vulnerability into account when making housing decisions. Failure to protect LGBTQ+ inmates from known risks is actionable.

Your loved one's criminal history doesn't negate the jail's duty to protect them. Once in custody, the state assumes responsibility for safety. Whether someone is a pretrial detainee or convicted felon, they retain the constitutional right to be protected from foreseeable violence.

Courts have found liability when officials knew of pervasive gang violence and took no steps to address it. But cases are stronger when we can show knowledge of specific risks—the victim's particular vulnerability, the attacker's history, or the known dynamics between specific inmates or groups.

Understaffing can support a municipal liability ('Monell') claim if the jail's deliberate policy of inadequate staffing created foreseeable risks. We combine failure-to-protect claims against individuals with policy claims against the county or private jail operator.

Families can recover funeral expenses, pre-death pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of financial support, and punitive damages against officials who ignored obvious dangers. Attorney's fees are recoverable under Section 1988 if you prevail.

Section 1983 claims in Oklahoma have a 2-year statute of limitations from the date of death. State wrongful death claims require a Tort Claim Notice within 1 year. Surveillance footage showing the attack may be deleted within weeks—contact us immediately to preserve evidence.