Floyd County faces class action over ‘stripping’ jail inmates

  • Print

Floyd County jail inmates who claim they and more than 160 inmates were sometimes forcibly stripped of their clothes and placed in padded cells with little apparent cause may pursue a class-action civil-rights lawsuit against the county, sheriff and jail staff.

Seven named plaintiffs sued the county, alleging the jail’s policy to deal with “combative and potentially suicidal subjects” booked in the jail was applied to them even though they were neither. Court records note they may have argued with jail staff before being placed in a padded cell. People detained under the policy enacted in 2010 are stripped, made to wear a “protective smock” and locked in a padded cell. Some plaintiffs claimed they were denied necessary medication, bedding and basic hygiene; about 25 allege jail staff used pepper spray or Tasers against them while they were in the cells.

The jail’s policy instructs staff to take a “temperature test” regarding an arrestee’s demeanor, attitude, intoxication and other factors to determine whether they should be subjected to the policy. Plaintiffs claim they have identified at least 162 people who were “stripped out,” as the jail calls it, for behavioral reasons but not because they posed a risk to themselves or jail staff. Plaintiffs allege their Fourth, Eighth and 14th Amendment rights were violated under the policy.   

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a petition for class action Friday in Tabitha Gentry, et al. v. Floyd County Indiana, et al., 4:14-cv-54. The motion establishes two classes: Those confined in the jail from June 12, 2013, to present who were not on a suicide watch but were housed in a padded cell and deprived of clothing, bedding and hygiene products; and a second class of those who were subjected to weapons deployment while in a padded cell.

Young ruled the proposed classes met the numerosity, commonality, typicality and other factors for class actions required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

“Plaintiffs reiterate that they seek certification on the issue of liability— i.e., whether Defendants’ ‘stripped out’ policy or practice violates the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by depriving them of basic human necessities. … The court agrees with the Plaintiffs,” Young wrote. “ … The court therefore finds that, notwithstanding any individual damages determinations, the constitutionality of the Defendants’ ‘stripped out’ policy and practice will be the predominate factor in determining liability.”

 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}