42 USC § 1983 action by a pretrial detainee for deliberate indifference; A “constitutional harm”; Whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiff was at “a substantial risk of harm from being placed in a cell” with two violent inmates; Westmoreland v Butler Cnty; Whether the action was “intentional”; Brawner v Scott Cnty; Causation; Whether plaintiff adequately alleged a claim under Monell v Department of Soc Servs; Barren County Detention Center (BCDC)

The court reversed summary judgment for defendants-County and County Jailer in this § 1983 case for deliberate indifference to pretrial detainee Poynter’s safety. It held that he “was not required to establish that a specific individual violated his rights” and that he raised a genuine issue of fact whether his assailants’ classification and presence in the general prison population “were intentional, not accidental.” He was placed in the County Jail for failure to pay child support. He was moved into a general-population cell where he was attacked by two cell occupants within two minutes. He suffered severe head trauma and is permanently impaired. He sued under § 1983 alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety where his two attackers were known to have previously beaten other inmates 11 times but were kept in the general-population cells. On appeal, the court first concluded the district court erred by ruling “that it was required to determine whether an individual BCDC staff member committed a constitutional violation” before a municipal defendant could be held liable under § 1983. “That is incorrect—we have held that a municipality can be liable for a constitutional violation ‘even in the absence of a showing of a constitutional violation by any one individual.’” He was only required to show that “he suffered a constitutional harm.” Applying the four-part Westmoreland test, the court held that Poynter offered sufficient evidence that his constitutional rights were violated. Considering the “intentional” requirement, it held that under Brawner, he was only required to show that “the unconstitutional action that harmed him was intentional (not accidental), recklessly placed him at a substantial risk of harm, and caused his injuries.” The court concluded that Poynter raised genuine fact issues whether the assailants’ classification was intentional, and whether the “BCDC recklessly disregarded the high risk of harm to Poynter from placing him in a cell” with two inmates with a history of violence and “did not take reasonable action to abate the risk.” As to causation, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that, if the assailants “had been classified properly and not placed in general population, Poynter would not have been hurt.” The court next found as to the Monell claim that Poynter offered “evidence that would allow a trier of fact to find that there was a clear and persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct.” Remanded.