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

A Handsome Settlement in the Dominion‐​Fox News Case

April 20, 2023

Harris’s Tax on Unrealized Gains is Only the...

August 26, 2024

A New Underground Market in E‑Cigarettes Will Soon...

June 5, 2023

Libertarianism and Government Shutdowns

October 4, 2023

Modi’s Bad Judgment in Choosing “National Champions”

November 21, 2024

Friday Feature: Church-Based Learning Centers

March 29, 2025

That’s Not How the BRAC Commission Worked: No...

November 28, 2023

Arizona Wants to Take Condo Owners’ Property and...

September 29, 2023

Taiwan Arms Backlog, April 2024 Update

May 2, 2024

Questioning the Housing Crisis: Crisis or Consumer Preference?

December 12, 2024

    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

    • Republican senator teams up with Democrat to push $15 per hour minimum wage plus annual inflation increases

      June 11, 2025
    • House of Lords AI summit at London Tech Week warns of ‘skills cliff edge’ threatening UK’s competitive future

      June 11, 2025
    • Tariff tensions force Spain’s food giants to seek markets beyond the US

      June 11, 2025
    • Sizewell C secures £14.2bn state boost – but energy savings won’t come for a decade

      June 11, 2025
    • Michelle Mone-linked PPE firm faces £122m high court battle with government

      June 11, 2025
    • Entrepreneur turned away from London Tech Week for bringing baby sparks industry backlash

      June 11, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,183)
    • Investing (2,027)
    • Politics (15,592)
    • Stocks (3,141)
    • 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