On the evening of Feb. 6, 2001, plaintiff Luis Garza, 28, was attacked and severely beaten by about 40 other inmates in the recreation yard of the federal correctional institution in Three Rivers. At the time, only two correctional employees were supervising 300 to 500 inmates scattered throughout the seven-acre recreation yard.Garza sued the United States, alleging violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2671 (FTCA), claiming that the negligence of prison employees proximately caused his injuries. He alleged that the patrol guard on duty was not patrolling the yard, contrary to specific orders, while another employee was staffing the metal detector. Garza alleged that (1) the government failed to free him from harm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 4042 and the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (2) the guard failed to follow the post order prohibiting large groups from gathering, and (3) the guard failed to follow the “will patrol” order instructing her to patrol the recreation yard.Judge Hilga Tagle dismissed the complaint, finding that Garza’s claims fell within the discretionary exception to the FTCA, thereby shielding the government from liability.
Garza successfully appealed the court’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for a full factual determination on the merits because the “will patrol” instruction prescribed a set course of action for the guard. The Fifth Circuit held that the issue in the case was the guard’s failure even to notice the group, rather than her alleged failure to properly assess its size and potential danger.
Garza alleged that specific post orders dictate the duties of a recreation patrol officer, including maintaining accurate accountability of inmates in the recreation yard. Further, patrol officers are instructed that “[i]inmates should not be allowed to gather in large groups.” When the attack on Garza began, the patrol guard was speaking with the employee who was staffing the metal detector, where only one staff member is typically needed. As a consequence, she did not observe the large groups of inmates that were observed by a number of other witnesses. None of the inmates observed the guard in the recreation yard during the time leading up to the violence.
Garza suffered fractures to his skull, jaw and cheek. He underwent surgery to release intracranial pressure and was in a coma for about eight days. He continues to experience pain and suffering, including severe headaches, dizzy spells and hearing loss.
He sought $500,000 for past and future physical pain and mental anguish, disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, and past lost earnings and loss of future earning capacity.
Following a bench trial, Judge Hilda O. Tagle found that it was the guard’s responsiblity to be on heightened awareness regarding her patrol and supervisory duties, and she was negligent in the performance of her duties. The court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $350,000.