The Fifth District Appellate Court upheld Madison County Associate Judge Anthony Jumper's ruling granting dismissal of an inmate's lawsuit alleging the sheriff's department failed to protect him from another inmate.
The Rule 23 decision was delivered on Sept. 29 by Justice Mike McHaney, with Justices John Barberis and Barry Vaughan concurring in the judgment.
The original lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Antonio R. Perkins in the Madison County Circuit Court against the Madison County Sheriff's Department.
Perkins alleged that in July 2019, he was attacked by another inmate while he was being held at the Madison County Jail. He alleged the other inmate was allowed out of his cell despite his status as a disciplinary detainee resulting from a prior assault. Perkins claimed he was attacked and suffered puncture wounds, lacerations, a swollen jaw and ongoing back pain.
Perkins alleged the Madison County Sheriff's Department and its employees failed to protect him. Perkins has since amended his complaint three times, most recently on Oct. 8, 2021.
The sheriff's department filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 20, 2021, arguing that the third amended complaint failed to make factual allegations to support Perkins' claims. Jumper granted the motion to dismiss on Aug. 23.
Perkins appealed the ruling.
The appellate court first noted that Perkins failed to assert that the trial court made any errors in judgment, forfeiting any such arguments.
In regards to the motion to dismiss, the appellate court concluded that the allegations raised in the complaint were insufficient
"Here, the complaint contains conclusory allegations that the Sheriff's Department had a custom and practice of violating its own express policies, thereby leading to violations of the plaintiff's rights, but it does not contain factual allegations describing a widespread practice so well-settled and permanent that it had force of law," McHaney wrote. "As such, the plaintiff's constitutional claim against the Sheriff's Department was properly dismissed."
As for Perkins' Eighth Amendment claim, the appellate court held that while he alleged inadequate security, "the complaint contains no allegations concerning the frequency and duration of the risk posed by the inadequate security."
"Moreover, the plaintiff does not allege that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his safety," McHaney wrote.
As such, the appellate court upheld Jumper's ruling, finding no error in his decision.