Clifton Redman v. County of San Diego Capt. Richard Beall Lt. Robert Witcraft Sgt. Dan Canfield Deputy Gene Turner, and Does I Through Xx, Inclusive

896 F.2d 362 Clifton REDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Capt. Richard Beall; Lt. Robert Witcraft; Sgt. Dan Canfield; Deputy Gene Turner, and Does I through XX, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-6139. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 1988. Decided Feb. 13, 1990. William D. Daley, Murphy & Daley, Chula Vista, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Nathan C. Northup, Deputy County Counsel, County of San Diego, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before TANG, THOMPSON and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Clifton Redman was raped while confined at the South Bay Detention Facility, a jail operated by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. The district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants in Redman's action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . The court determined that Redman had failed to establish facts sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Redman had been treated with "reckless indifference" or with "callous disregard" for his safety. We interpret the district…

Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part:

The majority distinguishes well the standards for government tort and constitutional liability. I dissent, however, because I believe the majority usurps the jury’s proper function of determining whether the government’s conduct amounted to deliberate indifference in this case. In our review of the directed verdict in this case, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to Redman and draw all inferences in his favor. See Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1256 (9th Cir.1985). Because substantial evidence would permit a jury reasonably to conclude that Redman’s jailers were deliberately indifferent to his personal security, I would reverse for trial. See id.

Redman’s evidence necessitates jury evaluation not only of his jailers’ acts, but also of his jailers’ motives under the deliberate indifference standard. The key factual issue in this case was what Redman’s jailers knew and how they responded to that knowledge when the guard called Red-man over to the guard station and asked if he was having any problems. At that point jail officials knew that Redman, a slightly-built eighteen-year-old with no prior convictions, was…

Clifton Redman was raped while confined at the South Bay Detention Facility, a jail operated by the San Diego County Sheriffs Department. The district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants in Redman’s action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The court determined that Redman had failed to establish facts sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Redman had been treated with “reckless indifference” or with “callous disregard” for his safety. We interpret the district court’s ruling as a determination that Redman failed to make a sufficient showing that he had been treated with “deliberate indifference” to his due process right to personal security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

FACTS 1

In January 1983, Clifton Redman was booked into San Diego County’s South Bay Detention Facility (“SBDF”) where he was held as a pretrial detainee. Upon arrival Redman, then eighteen years old, was placed in a receiving module designated as a “young and tender” unit. Redman was approximately 5'6" tall and weighed 130 pounds. He had no prior criminal convictions.

About one week after his arrival, Red-man was transferred from the “young and…