green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
44.1 score
“a prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.”
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gonzalez Reyna v. Pride
a prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
John Doe v. District of Columbia
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
onfinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Lightcap
a prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States ex rel. Ricketts v. Lightcap
a prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wentz v. Ames
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34 , 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976-77 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598-99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sumpter v. Butler
Recognizing this, the Eighth Amendment provides an inmate with the right “to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates,” i.e., a right to be reasonably protected from an “excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hicks v. Day
Similarly, in Woodhous v. Virginia, the Fourth Circuit stated that “[a] prisoner has a right, secured by the [E]ighth and [F]ourteenth [A]mendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.” 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Light v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34 , 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976-77 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 598-99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moya, Luis v. Florida Department of Corrections
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cnty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Palmer v. Jefferson
Palmer bases that argument on Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, where the Fourth Circuit held: “A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.” 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gomez v. Vernon
Toombs Cnty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
D.S. v. Dunn
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (in turn quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973))); see also Harrison, 746 F.3d at 1299 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
WILSON v. PERRY
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
WORTHEN v. JEFFERSON
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cnty., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny Gaffney v. Warden, Taylor Correctional Institution
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., Ga, 400 F.3d 1313, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wood- hous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hower v. Damron
Cf. Benefield v. McDowall, 241 F. 3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases); Woodhous v. Com. of Va., 487 F. 2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (“A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Murray v. Beaver
Finally, “[w]hile occasional, isolated attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, … confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable.” Woodhous v. Com. of Va., 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lomick v. Beaver
Finally, “[w]hile occasional, isolated attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, … confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable.” Woodhous v. Com. of Va., 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Sheriff of Walker County
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In other words, he must show that he was exposed to a “constant threat of violence.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darius Ishun Green v. Warden Brad Hooks
It is well established that an inmate has an Eighth Amendment right “to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his [or her] fellow inmates.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 31 Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 32 of 34 1320–21 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darius Ishun Green v. Warden Brad Hooks
It is well established that an inmate has an Eighth Amendment right “to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his [or her] fellow inmates.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 31 Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 32 of 34 1320–21 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Logan v. Clemmons
A plaintiff’s allegations must demonstrate he is exposed to “an excessive risk of inmate-on-inmate violence” such that he faces a “constant threat of violence.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1320 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell Marbury v. Warden
Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., 400 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)); accord Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1299 (11th Cir. 2014). 16 Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1322 . 17 In Marbury’s objection to the report and recommendation, he argued that additional discovery would substantiate his claim of widespread violence “a year prior to[ ] and a year after” Marbury’s departure from St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E.B. v. W. Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Authority, etc.
Our own jurisprudence explains the connection: The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that inmates have an actionable right against prison officials for “confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign.” Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973); Hite v. Leeke, 564 F.2d 670, 672-73 (4th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Doe v. Robert Ayers, Jr.
For decades, the federal courts have recognized how powerfully damaging the experience of "confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign” would be to a prisoner, in clearly recognizing "a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by [] fellow inmates....” Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) ("Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not ‘part of the penalty that criminal off…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jody O'Neil Harrison v. Grantt Culliver
Holman is a large institution — according to the District Court’s undisputed finding, Holman housed between 830 and 990 inmates during the relevant time period — and the thirty-three incidents involving weapons, only four of which occurred on the back hallway, are hardly sufficient to demonstrate that Holman was a prison “where violence and terror reign.” See id. at 1320 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia,) 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Purcell Ex Rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, GA
A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth ... amendment! ], to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates[.]” Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (citation *1321 omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Benefield v. C.O. McDowall
Moreover, he does not need to wait until he is actually assaulted before obtaining relief.”) (citations omitted); Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abrams v. Don Hunter
Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 136 , 66 L.Ed.2d 59 (1980) (quoting Woodhous v. Com. of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Benyi v. Broome County, NY
Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wayne Rush Meadows v. Augusta Correctional Center Augusta Security
Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John Laurence Miller v. Yvonne M. Williams Ken Bell, Ausa
Cf. Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kevin C. Purvis v. Joseph Ponte
Leonardo, 611 F.2d at 399 , quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ricky Brogsdale v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Donyell A. Marsh v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 , 103 S.Ct. 1625 , 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983); Murphy v. United States, 653 F.2d 637, 644-45 (D.C.Cir.1981) (Eighth Amendment violated where prison officials show "deliberate indifference” to pervasive risk of violence to inmates); Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) ("A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates_”). 8 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Winebrenner
Given the pervasive and unreasonable risk of harm, negligence by prison officials in their performance of their duty of care is a violation of the constitutional right and actionable under Sec. 1983. 15 See also Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (formulating reasonable care standard in reliance on Restatement (Second) of Torts ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Waco v. Hester
Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.A. Street v. Michael v. Fair
And this duty extends to protecting inmates “from constant threats of violence”; a prisoner “need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief.” Leonardo, 611 F.2d at 399 , quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nestor Ayala Serrano v. Cruz Lebron Gonzalez
See also Blankenship v. Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 742 (10th Cir.1988); Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 417 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 935 , 108 S.Ct. 311 , 98 L.Ed.2d 269 (1987); Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (8th Cir.1984); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca4 1990
A prisoner has a constitutional right "to be reasonably protected from the constant threat of violence and sexual assault from his fellow inmates...." Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tillery v. Owens
Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 572 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 , 101 S.Ct. 1759 , 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilland v. Owens
Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973). 13 In determining whether prison officials have violated inmates’ rights by failing to protect them from assault by other inmates, the Sixth Circuit has applied the Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 291 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), “deliberate indifference” standard.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Willits
Protection Afforded A prisoner has a right, under the eighth amendment, to be reasonably protected from the “constant threat of violence * * * [from] his fellow inmates * * Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Willits
Protection Afforded 24 A prisoner has a right, under the eighth amendment, to be reasonably protected from the "constant threat of violence * * * [from] his fellow inmates * * *." Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guillermina Cortes-Quinones v. Charles Jimenez-Nettleship, Etc.
(2×)
The basic legal standards governing this case are well established. “[P]rison officials have a duty under the 8th and 14th amendments to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Leonardo v. Moran, 611 F.2d 397, 398-99 (1st Cir.1979); accord Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 , 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3200-01 , 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir.1986); Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (8th Cir.1984); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1309 (5th Cir.1974); Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Preston A. Washington, Jr. v. District of Columbia
See, e.g., Spence v. Staras, 507 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir.1974) (State hospital inmate “had a right, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to be secure in his life and person while confined under state authority.”); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (“A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates____”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca4 1986
Likewise, Smith's claims of --medical mistreatment do not rise to the level of "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1977) ,necessary to state a cause of action under Sec. 1983. 8 Smith's complaint fails to allege that prison officials failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting Smith from "a pervasive risk of harm," Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973), or that the officials' actions were "totally without penological justification," Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981) (citations omitted), when they showed a fel…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Riley v. Glen R. Jeffes
(2×)
Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d at 572 , citing Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Warner v. County of Washoe
Warner had a “constitutional right to be reasonably protected from ... sexual assault from his fellow inmates ...” Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Porm v. White
See also Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 136 , 66 L.Ed.2d 59 (1980); Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Porm v. White
See also Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158, 161 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 136 , 66 L.Ed.2d 59 (1980); Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir.1973).
Gene WOODHOUS, Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Et Al., Appellees
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Et Al., Appellees
72-1576.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 27, 1973.
Robert Plotkin, Washington, D. C. (court-appointed counsel), for appellant., William A. Carter, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., on brief), for appellees.
Butzner, Haynsworth, Per Curiam, Russell.
Cited by 169 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
In Woodhous v. Virginia, Mem.Dec. No. 15,075 (4th Cir., July 7, 1971), we vacated an order dismissing Woodhous’ complaint and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Woodhous, a prisoner, was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because the state was not adequately protecting him from violence and sexual assaults by other prisoners. The district court appointed counsel for Wood-hous, and, after hearing testimony from Woodhous and two prison officials, found no violation of his constitutional rights. We reverse because we believe the district court unduly restricted the protection afforded a prisoner by the eighth amendment.
Briefly, the district court found that Woodhous had not been attacked and[*890] that he did not fear attack. The court concluded, therefore, that Woodhous had not proved his cause of action. Because the case was not a class action, the court ruled that Woodhous could not complain on behalf of young inmates who had been sexually assaulted. Finally, observing that guards were shorthanded through lack of funds, the court concluded that the prison officials were doing what they could with the money at their disposal. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint.
While occasional, isolated attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, Penn v. Oliver, 351 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D.Va.1972), confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable. A prisoner has a right, secured by the eighth and fourteenth amendments, to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his fellow inmates, and he need not wait until he is actually assaulted to obtain relief. Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1971). In addition to being a potential victim, Woodhous was subjected to the danger of reprisal when he went to the aid of a younger prisoner who was being sexually assaulted.
Woodhous also complains that he was denied the right to summon six other prisoners who could have enlarged on his description of prison discipline. The lawyer who was then representing him declined to summon these witnesses because Woodhous was not involved in the attacks they had seen. [1] Over Woodhous’ objection, the court acquiesced in the lawyer’s decision. The exclusion of this evidence was error. Other prisoners’ description of attacks is relevant to determine whether the peril about which Woodhous complains is constant and imminent.
Although we are remanding the case, we note that it may not be necessary to conduct another hearing. At oral argument, we were told that similar complaints from other prisoners are now being considered in a consolidated action, Stotler v. Brown, No. 292-70-R, which is pending in the district court. Relief, if appropriate in that case, may inure to the benefit of Woodhous and eliminate the need for further proceedings in his ease. On the other hand, if the outcome of that case does not afford him relief, he should be granted a new trial and allowed to present the testimony of several witnesses about the danger of attack from other prisoners. In determining whether to grant relief, the court should ascertain: (1) whether there is a pervasive risk of harm to inmates from other prisoners, and, if so, (2) whether the officials are exercising reasonable care to prevent prisoners from intentionally harming others or from creating an unreasonable risk of harm. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 320 (1965).
The judgment of the district court is vacated and this ease is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1
. Woodhous was represented by different counsel on appeal.