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

Large-Scale Food Stamp Fraud

May 30, 2025

The Islamic Secular and the Seeds of Freedom

November 14, 2024

We Are Still Measuring Inflation All Wrong

February 26, 2024

Friday Feature: Arborbrook Christian Academy

November 15, 2024

The FTC’s Doublethink Confuses Content Moderation, Censorship, and...

February 24, 2025

Financial Economists Dismiss Stock Buyback Fury

May 10, 2023

What We Should Hope for from the Newly...

November 20, 2024

New York City’s Two Overdose Prevention Centers Saved...

August 9, 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies Murky “Waters of the United...

May 26, 2023

Not Everything You Dislike Is a “Negative Externality”

January 24, 2025

    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

    • HMRC inheritance tax investigations surge 37% as treasury seeks to plug revenue gap

      June 9, 2025
    • Believ secures £300m to roll out 30,000 public EV charge points across the UK

      June 9, 2025
    • US and China hold London talks to ease trade war tensions

      June 9, 2025
    • British fathers urged to join landmark ‘dad strike’ over poor paternity leave

      June 9, 2025
    • IVF parents should have right to paid fertility leave, says GMB union

      June 9, 2025
    • Reform UK clashes with Bank of England over interest payments to lenders

      June 9, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,158)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,571)
    • Stocks (3,136)
    • 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