Federal Appeals Court revives NC inmate’s lawsuit against prison guard

A North Carolina inmate can move forward with a lawsuit against a state prison guard, thanks to a ruling Tuesday from the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The court revived inmate Harris Emanuel Ford’s suit against prison officer Jerry Ingram.

The decision reversed a trial judge’s ruling against Ford. But appellate judges agreed with US District Judge Loretta Biggs that Ford cannot proceed with his complaint against other prison officials. Biggs had granted summary judgment in 2021 to all six prison employees named as defendants.

Ford claimed that “by failing to protect him from a fellow inmate who attacked him with a shank and severely injured him, the prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights,” wrote Judge Paul Niemeyer. “Ford alleged that he had made prison officials aware of the risk of such an attack by filing numerous complaints and grievances but that the officials were deliberately indifferent to them, giving rise to the attack.”

“The district court granted the prison officials summary judgment, concluding that Ford’s complaints and grievances had not been sufficiently specific to enable the officials to investigate and respond and that Ford had failed to demonstrate the mens rea of deliberate indifference necessary for an Eighth Amendment violation,” Niemeyer explained.

“Mens rea” refers to the criminal intent or guilty mind necessary for a person to face legal liability.

“We affirm the district court’s judgment as to five of the six prison officials whom Ford named as defendants,” Niemeyer wrote. “But as to Officer Jerry Ingram, we conclude that, ‘taking the facts in the best light for the nonmoving party,’ … there was a question of fact that precluded summary judgment, namely whether Officer Ingram knowingly aggravated the risk to Ford and possibly contributed to the cause of the attack. Accordingly, as to Officer Ingram, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.”  

Remanding the case sends it back to Biggs’ court, where Ford can pursue his claims against Ingram.

Ford was imprisoned at Scotland Correctional Institution in Laurinburg in 2004 for first-degree rape. Shortly afterward, he cooperated with a district attorney “in successfully prosecuting a murder charge against a fellow inmate,” Niemeyer wrote. Ford asked to be transferred to another prison because of safety concerns. State officials moved Ford to “various institutions of the next decade.” He returned to the Scotland prison in March 2017.

“Shortly after arriving at the Scotland Institution, an inmate, who was allegedly a member of a gang, threatened Ford, ‘check off or get blowed,’ which Ford understood to mean he would be ‘shanked’ if he did not receive protective custody,” Niemeyer wrote. “Ford reported the threat to prison officials and requested protective custody.”

“In response, Officer Jerry Ingram had Ford temporarily placed in protective custody while he conducted an investigation of Ford’s complaint. During the investigation, however, Ingram was unable to uncover the identity of the person who had made the threat, and, accordingly, he denied Ford’s request for protective custody ‘due to inmate Ford not providing any names of the inmates who allegedly put a hit out on him,’” the 4th Circuit opinion continued.

Ford eventually was stabbed and called a “snitch” in April 2017. A month later, he complained again to prison officials about threats from a gang member.

“After Ford’s second request for protective custody was denied and Ford was returned to the general population, Officer Ingram entered his cell and yelled at him, ‘[w]ithin earshot of other inmates on the unit,’ demanding that Ford name the individuals threatening him,” Niemeyer wrote. “Ford refused to publicly answer Officer Ingram. Ford then filed another request for protective custody in which he complained about Officer Ingram’s conduct, stating, ‘[T]he reason I make this request is d[ue] to the fact all the inmates heard what was said and now they want to harm [me] due to the fact that they believe I’m a snitch.’”

In September 2017, inmate Jamal McRae “stabbed Ford repeatedly with a shank, requiring that Ford receive dozens of stitches at the hospital,” the court opinion added. Ford and McRae offered conflicting stories about the reason for the stabbing. Ford argued that McRae called him a “snitch” during the attack.

Prison officials transferred Ford to another prison. He filed his federal lawsuit in April 2019. It alleged that six prison employees “were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of the attack and resulting injuries and thus violated his Eighth Amendment rights.”

Appellate judges rejected Ford’s complaints against five defendants, including the prison warden and assistant superintendent.

“Finally, as to Ford’s claim against Officer Ingram, Ingram’s circumstances for the most part are not unlike those of the other four prison officials who received Ford’s complaints; Ingram knew of Ford’s complaints and responded to them. Indeed, Officer Ingram tried more forcefully to investigate them by pressing yet harder for the identification of the perpetrators,” Niemeyer wrote. “But in doing so, his conduct raised a question of fact as to whether his response actually revealed a conscious disregard of a serious risk of harm that he knew was inappropriate.”

“It is thus significant that while Officer Ingram asked Ford, who he had a problem with and why he wanted protective custody, by doing so in such a public manner, Ingram may perhaps have knowingly exacerbated the danger to Ford that officers had already recognized,” the appellate opinion continued.

“We conclude, in light of this evidence as viewed most favorably to Ford, that there were genuine factual disputes over whether Officer Ingram consciously disregarded a known risk of harm to Ford and whether such conscious disregard, if shown, was a sufficient cause of the harm Ford suffered,” Niemeyer wrote.

Judges Roger Gregory and Steven Agee joined Niemeyer’s decision.