Is there a plausible Eight Amendment claim for the death of the inmates who perished in Arecibo?

 On November 7, 2011 eight inmates perished by drowning when the correctional officer  who transported them from court dates and back to a prison located in the municipality of Arecibo, tried to cross a flooded back-road in the countryside.  The Eight Amendment may provide all inmates involved in the incident with  a cause of action against the nitwit correctional officer insofar as the manner in which they were shackled to the vehicle impeded their timely escape.  But what about other constitutional claims against higher ranking officials? I think that these may be plausible, although difficult.

Granted that the correctional officer was responsible for the deaths, and the damages caused to the surviving inmates.  However, he has been charged with negligent homicide and that makes the prospect of him receiving Law 9 representation, or judgment payment benefits, a far-cry, at best.

However, there are policies and procedures  which were  followed there and where obviously incorrect, obsolete, or downright inexistent.  In the context of DeShaney duties, which may arise from the strictly custodial setting in which the accident took place with regards to at least one of the dead inviduals,  these issues of proper instruction, policies and procedures are relevant.

These issues are also relevant in order to consider a failure to train, or screen, claim against the officer's supervisors.   Clearly, risk assessment and decision making matters were at play in this incident, and untrained decision-making could prove to be the proximate cause of the accident.  Whether training in order to eschew inappropriate practices was inexcusably disregarded is a worthy claim, if the facts support it.

Moreover, it could also be that a pattern of risk-taking was the result of overzealous observance of time-constraints and requirements set forth by the higher hierarchy of correctional officers.  Thus, if management pushed harder for compliance with these putative requirements, without properly ensuring inmate safety or acquiescing to known imperilment of inmate safety; there may also be a claim for inexcusable neglect or "supervisory" liability.

Although these claims against higher ranking officers may trigger PLRA issues; these are sure well worth the risk in order to properly plead these events and seek compensation for the injured inmates or the families of the dead ones.  Who knows, it may be that PLRA exhaustion yields some valuable information.

• Ave. Rio Hondo PMB 130

• Rio Hondo

• Bayamón, PR 00961-3113
  

• Cel. 787-647-6632,

• Fax: 775-366-7629, 
  

• 6476632@gmail.com