Bentley West and Jerry Rainey v. Jack Tillman, et al.

In this civil rights action, Plaintiffs Bentley West and Jerry Rainey
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Defendants Jack Tillman, Sheriff of Mobile County; James E. Owens, Deputy
Warden of Mobile County Metro Jail (the "Jail"); Lt. Esther Mitchell, Supervisor
of the Jail's Records Division; Bridgette Goode, Corrections Officer at the Jail;
and Tiffany Davis, Linda Whitton, and Laketa Wallace, all Records Specialists at
the Jail (collectively, "Defendants"). We have discovered no reversible error; we
affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This appeal calls into question the adequacy of the Jail's procedures for
processing court orders relating to the Jail's inmates. The record shows that the
Jail receives anywhere from 5,000 to 12,000 different court orders per month,
sometimes with a volume of up to 2,000 to 3,000 documents per week. Sometime in 2000, the records department staff at the Jail was downsized from six people to
two or three people.1 As a result, the records department staff worked overtime;
and other Jail employees familiar with the records procedure were called in to
assist with the workload. When Capt. Ronnie Phillips took over as acting warden
in 2001, he immediately began making efforts to increase the staffing levels at the
Jail, including in the records room. When a new warden took over in April 2003,
the Jail was almost fully staffed at its authorized levels, with six people staffing
the records room.2

West was incarcerated at the Jail on a charge of marijuana possession on 2
November 2002. Despite a 4 December court order reducing his bond amount and
allowing him to execute a signature bond on his own behalf, West remained in
custody until 27 December. According to standard procedures, when the court
sent the order to the Jail, the order should have been entered into the Jail's
computer system; and the "jail card" should have been delivered to the docket
department to accomplish West's release. Instead, Defendant Whitton, who received the 4 December order, only partially entered the order3 and failed to
deliver the jail card to docketing.

At different times throughout his detention, West asked Jail officials about
his release. For example, West asked Defendant Goode to check on his release on
at least two occasions.4 In response to one request on or before 19 December,
Goode called the records department to inquire about West's release. Defendant
Davis, a records specialist, requested another copy of the order from the court and
entered that order into the system; but again, the jail card did not reach the docket
room.5 On 27 December, in response to another inquiry by West, Goode consulted
the system and told West he should have been released on 19 December. West
was released on 27 December.

Rainey was incarcerated on 31 October 2002, on robbery charges. The
grand jury no-billed him on 27 March 2003, and the court order for his release was sent to the Jail that day. A records specialist -- "thought" to be Defendant Wallace
-- entered the order into the system but failed to deliver the jail card. Although
Rainey allegedly asked Jail officials about his release from time to time, he was
not released until 24 May 2003.

Plaintiffs filed this joint suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Tillman
in his official and individual capacities and against the remaining Defendants in
their individual capacities, alleging – among other things6 – that (1) Goode, Davis,
Whitton, and Wallace (the "Nonsupervisory Defendants") were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when they
failed to bring about Plaintiffs' release from custody; (2) Lt. Mitchell, Sheriff
Tillman, and Deputy Warden Owens (the "Supervisory Defendants") were liable
for the violation because they failed to staff adequately, supervise, and train the
records staff at the Jail; and (3) Sheriff Tillman's release policies (or lack thereof)
were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Plaintiffs failed
to present sufficient evidence that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' rights.7 In the order, the district court noted that a page in one of
Plaintiffs' affidavits was missing from the record. Plaintiffs moved to alter or to
amend the court's order and requested permission to supplement the record with
the complete affidavit. The district court denied the motion. Plaintiffs now appeal
the district court's grant of summary judgment and the court's denial of Plaintiffs'
motion to alter or amend the judgment.

* * *