Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Sargeant v. Barfield Brief: Holding Prison Officials Accountable for Exposing Inmates to Violence

by September 20, 2024
September 20, 2024
Sargeant v. Barfield Brief: Holding Prison Officials Accountable for Exposing Inmates to Violence

Matthew Cavedon

According to his legal complaint, petitioner Roy Sargeant is a prison inmate who has cooperated with the government and therefore was entitled to be housed separately from non-cooperating inmates. Sargeant filed a grievance against a prison official after she commented on his sexual preferences and refused to give him books he had ordered. Sargeant further complained after respondent Aracelie Barfield, another prison official, spread news about the grievance. In retaliation, Barfield repeatedly put Sargeant into cells with violent prisoners. This led to fights between Sargeant and other inmates.

Sargeant sued Barfield, alleging that she violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, specifically by failing to protect him during his imprisonment. The district court dismissed his complaint.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that failure-to-protect claims cannot be the basis for a suit for damages under the Supreme Court’s Bivens decision. Dissenting, Judge Hamilton wrote that constitutional rights are only as good as the remedies available for their violation. Sargeant is now seeking certiorari (legal review) from the Supreme Court.

Cato and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed an amicus brief in support of Sargeant’s petition. It observed that suits for damages are a potentially highly effective means of enforcing constitutional rights, exposing individual and systemic misconduct, and incentivizing policymakers to adopt needed reforms.

And contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s analysis here, allowing federal prisoners a monetary remedy when a rank-and-file prison official deliberately subjects them to the risk of inmate-on-inmate violence will not present “separation-of-powers concerns” by inviting courts to “interfere with” issues such as prison “housing policies.”

Federal prisoners are among our nation’s most vulnerable populations. It is precisely these people—who generally cannot vote, protest, or garner attention from the media—who are most dependent on the judicial system to vindicate their constitutional rights. The court should grant Sargeant’s petition and reverse the earlier decision.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
How Can Automation Bring A Transformative Change In HR Processes
next post
Friday Feature: St. Ambrose Academy

You may also like

More Foreign Investment, Less Tariffs and Subsidies

December 20, 2024

Meet the New Steel Tariffs, Same as the...

June 4, 2025

Money Still Matters: The Case of Argentina

March 21, 2024

Friday Feature: Bright Minds STEAM Studio

February 28, 2025

Nigeria’s CBDC Was Not Chosen. It Was Forced

May 15, 2023

New Medicaid Regulations Unlikely to Improve Accessibility and...

May 31, 2024

Is Our Credit Card System Broken?

March 19, 2024

New Essay: Public Health as If People Mattered

March 18, 2025

The First Amendment Protects Ideologically Based Ad Boycotts

July 11, 2025

Book Review: The Menace of Fiscal QE

June 26, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Trump to announce $100bn Apple investment pledge to boost US manufacturing

      August 6, 2025
    • SCOOP: Trump admin, OpenAI partner to unleash artificial intelligence on federal government

      August 6, 2025
    • The Tax Bill’s Success Will Turn on Regulatory Implementation

      August 6, 2025
    • Why I Helped Organize the Department of Energy’s Climate Report

      August 6, 2025
    • Anand Lalaji on Building Trust in Healthcare Leadership

      August 6, 2025
    • Nine Examples of Waste in the New Markets Tax Credit Program

      August 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,690)
    • Investing (2,178)
    • Politics (16,319)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved