COALITION AGAINST INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILD ABUSE
 HEADLINE NEWS                                                                                                                                                                                                             CAICA EN FRANÇAIS
 

CAICA     HOME   │   NEWS  │  PROGRAM NEWS  │  STORIES │  DEATHS  │   WWASPS   │  PARENTS' CORNER  │  MISSION  │ SITE MAP │  LINKS & RESOURCES
  _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

              AUTISM  │ LITIGATION  │  LEGISLATION  │ JUVENILE JUSTICE  │ MENTAL HEALTH │ LIGHTER SIDE │  EN FRANCAIS  │ COMMENTS  │ LIST SERVE  │  BLOGS  
 

 

Anderson suit partially dismissed
Judge lets claims of state, county negligence stand

By Bill Cotterell
October 19, 2006
DEMOCRAT POLITICAL EDITOR

A federal judge has thrown out major parts of a civil-rights lawsuit filed against the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Bay County Sheriff's Office by the parents of a teenage boy who died after a beating at a juvenile boot camp.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle also rejected a claim of conspiracy between DJJ and the county. He barred punitive damages in the death of Martin Lee Anderson but left standing some negligence claims against the state and county.

"It cannot be said to a certainty that plaintiffs would be unable to recover under any set of facts that could be proven in support of these claims," Hinkle said of the counts he did not dismiss.

The Panama City teenager's death Jan. 6 prompted state legislative action that closed all boot camps in the state. The videotape of sheriff's deputies punching and kneeing him sparked a mass march on the Capitol and members of the legislative black caucus have pressed Gov. Jeb Bush and State Attorney Mark Ober - who was brought in from Tampa to handle the investigation - for criminal charges against the boot-camp guards.

Attorney Ben Crump, representing the boy's family, said "the heart of our lawsuit" still stands because Hinkle did not throw out negligence claims against the state and county. He said he will amend the conspiracy count and re-argue it.

"The real issue here is what happened on that videotape," said Crump. "A jury will see through the rhetoric and get to the meat of this matter, to hold these police officers responsible for torturing and killing Martin Lee Anderson."

Robert Anderson and Gina Jones, the boy's parents, filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court against the DJJ and the sheriff's office, but the state and county had the case moved to federal court. At a conference on Monday, Hinkle set an April 16 trial date and said he was dismissing several counts.

"The law is settled, however, that punitive damages may not be recovered against governmental defendants,"
Hinkle wrote in a six-page order filed in the clerk's office on Wednesday.

Attorney John Jolly, representing the sheriff's office, said the court "substantially narrowed the issues" in the lawsuit. He said "it's difficult to assess at this stage" what impact the dismissals might have on any damages awarded in the suit.

"This makes punitive damages unavailable and makes the post-death 'conspiracy' not part of the lawsuit," he said, adding "quote-unquote" to the word "conspiracy." "It will simply be about the events leading to Mr. Anderson's unfortunate death."

Hinkle dismissed a federal civil-rights claim against DJJ and expressed skepticism as to whether the sheriff's office could be liable, if it was acting under contract with the state. He also said attorneys for the parents had not shown that state and county officials conspired in a cover-up.

"Plaintiffs apparently assert that the object of the conspiracy was to suppress information concerning the events at issue," Hinkle wrote. He said the family did not offer any evidence that the state and county conspired.

In two of the counts not dismissed by Hinkle, the family alleged that DJJ was liable for negligence by sheriff's employees, who operated the boot camp under contract with the state. A third surviving allegation was a negligence claim against the sheriff's office.

Crumpe said there will be a few more pre-trial hearings and arguments over issues to be added or dismissed before the case is heard in April.

An initial autopsy in Bay County attributed the youth's death to complications from sickle-cell trait but a second autopsy concluded that he suffocated while having ammonia capsules shoved in his nose and his mouth covered. The state tried to withhold the video of guards punching and kneeing him but some news organizations went to court to force its release.

Hinkle also permitted a civil-rights count against the sheriff's office to go forward but said the county argued "with some force" that the deputies were acting as agents of the state.

"If he acted only as an arm of the state, then the sheriff, like the department, would not be amenable to suit....," Hinkle wrote. "But it cannot be said to a certainty, based on this complaint, that the sheriff acted only as an arm of the state, especially in light of the fact that any judgment against the sheriff in this action would be payable from funds of the county, not the state."

Contact Bill Cotterell at (850) 671-6545 or bcotterell@tallahassee.com.

 

 

DISCLAIMER, WARNINGS, AND NOTICE TO READERS: This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"). None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with this website in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in these web pages. All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary information to the public.

FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

REFERRALS: CAICA is not a referral agency. CAICA does not refer to or promote facilities or transport companies for children or teens. CAICA warns parents that the parent pay / parent choice programs ie. Residential Treatment Centers, Therapeutic Boarding Schools, Behavior Modification Programs, Christian Programs, Positive Peer Culture Programs, etc., are not regulated by the Federal Government and that it is a "Buyer Beware" industry. CAICA provides the following for parents: Message to Parents, Help for Distraught and Desperate Parents, and Questions to Ask and Warning Signs.

© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008