Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
Keywords: | Jail officials' failure to protect inmates; Standard of review; "Episodic act or omission" cases |
Jurisdiction: | Federal, Texas |
Cited Cases: | 114 F.3d 51; 124 F.3d 736 |
Cited Statutes: | None |
Date: | 06/01/2000 |
Generally, in this Circuit cases involving jail officials’ failure to protect an inmate from the risks of rape or suicide have been considered as “episodic act or omission” cases. TA s "Flores v. County of Hardman, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5th " c 1 l "Flores v. County of Hardman, 124 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 1997)"Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997); TA s "Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53-54 (5th 1997) " c 1 l "Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51 (5th 1997) "Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51, 53-54 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc). In Flores, the court set out the applicable standard:
To succeed in holding a municipality accountable for such a violation, the detainee must show that the municipal employee (1) violated his clearly established constitutional rights with subjective deliberate indifference and (2) the violation resulted from a municipal policy or custom adopted or maintained with objective deliberate indifference.
TA s "Flores v. County of Hardman, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5th " c 1124 F.3d at 738.
[…]
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!