## Facts

- Edward Howard Withers, a young, slightly built Maryland prisoner, had a documented history of being sexually assaulted in multiple custodial settings, including a prior assault at the Maryland House of Correction (MHC).
- MHC had recurring incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual assault; many incidents were found to go unreported due to threats and fear of retaliation.
- Newly arrived or reassigned prisoners were often housed on an “idle tier” for 60–90 days and placed in two-person cells largely based on space availability, without safety-based compatibility review.
- When Withers first arrived at MHC, his cellmate attempted to assault him; after an altercation, Withers requested transfer and was moved to another institution.
- About 18 months later, a classification team ordered Withers transferred back to MHC after reviewing his base file reflecting prior assaults, but no steps were taken to notify MHC housing officials that Withers required special precautions.
- Upon return, Withers was placed in a two-person cell with Leon Redd, an inmate with a known history of violent, aggressive sexual assaults; cell assignment personnel did not review base files or otherwise assess the safety of the pairing.
- Redd raped Withers using threats and force.
- Withers sued Maryland correctional officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for failure to protect him from foreseeable sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by failing to take reasonable measures to protect a vulnerable inmate from a pervasive and foreseeable risk of sexual assault by other prisoners.
2. Whether the evidence supported findings of a pervasive risk of harm at MHC and an inadequate institutional response sufficient to justify declaratory and injunctive relief.
3. Whether an order requiring prison officials to devise procedures providing reasonable protection from aggressive sexual assaults was an appropriate remedy.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court accepted the district court’s factual findings as supported by the record and approved its legal reasoning.
- The court upheld an order requiring officials to devise and implement procedures providing inmates reasonable protection from aggressive sexual assaults.

## Legal Principles

- The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners when the risk is pervasive and reasonably foreseeable.
- A “pervasive risk of harm” may be shown by patterns and conditions demonstrating that serious assaults are a recurring threat, including evidence that assaults frequently go unreported due to intimidation.
- Deliberate indifference may be found where officials have, or should have, knowledge of specific vulnerability and specific aggressor risk (including information contained in institutional files) yet fail to implement or follow procedures that would reduce foreseeable harm.
- Federal courts may grant declaratory and injunctive relief to correct unconstitutional conditions while leaving implementation details to prison administrators, so long as the remedy requires constitutionally adequate protection rather than absolute safety.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Maryland correctional officials could be required to institute protective procedures where institutional practices and available information made inmate-on-inmate sexual assault a pervasive, foreseeable danger to vulnerable prisoners, and the failure to respond with reasonable measures violated the Eighth Amendment.


Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980)