Federal judge declines to dismiss inmate's lawsuit against government over prison stabbing

An inmate has plausibly claimed government officials were negligent by failing to prevent a prison yard attack on him and also failing to intervene, a federal judge has ruled.

David J. Martin was incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in Florence on June 2, 2018, when his cousin snuck up behind him in the recreation yard and stabbed him repeatedly. Martin claimed officials knew he should have been separated from his cousin, and they allowed a weapon to evade the security checkpoint.

The government did not contest that Martin sustained nine stab wounds in the attack, but argued Martin had failed to state a claim and was not permitted to sue over the prison's alleged failure to separate him from his assailant.

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang denied the government's motion to dismiss. It was unclear to her whether there was an order requiring Martin to be separated from his cousin while imprisoned. If the Federal Bureau of Prisons were required to keep the two men separated but failed to do so, Martin could prevail on his claim.

"While the determination as to whether to separate inmates may be within the BOP’s discretion," Wang wrote in a June 23 order, "if the BOP has exercised that discretion, determined that inmates must be separated, and designated an inmate ... as a separatee with respect to a specific person, 'there will be no shelter from liability' for disregarding that separation order."

Martin and his cousin, Geshik–O–Binese Martin, stood trial for murder and robbery in federal court in Minnesota in 2013. Jurors convicted David Martin solely of robbery, and Geshik–O–Binese Martin for both offenses. David Martin maintained at trial he did not kill the two victims.

On June 1, 2018, Martin entered the Florence prison, where he reportedly did not indicate at intake that he had testified against anyone or otherwise had a reason to avoid placement in general population. That same day, a prison gang member allegedly told Martin to "meet your cousin on the yard" the following morning.

Martin described passing through two metal detectors to enter the yard, which he said were so sensitive they could detect the presence of staples. Sitting on a set of bleachers, which were in view of a guard tower, he began "experiencing a pushing down on my head, and it became painful." Geshik–O–Binese Martin stabbed him repeatedly with an approximately-7-inch knife. The assailant eventually stopped, said, "Caught you slipping," and walked away.

According to David Martin, officers who were not in a hurry approached him and escorted him to the clinic. Martin had wounds on his back, throat, abdomen and chest.

In August 2021, he filed a lawsuit that named the United States government as the sole defendant.

Martin claimed that because his attacker was able to get the knife past security checkpoints, "either the two Officers permitted this to occur which is a clear 'Gross Negligence', -or- they were NOT manning the Metal Detectors which is also Negligence, by definition," he wrote. Martin asked for $500,000 in damages.

The government generally admitted to the facts of the attack, while denying any staff member permitted the knife to go through security. Although the United States is typically immune from lawsuits, there is an exception if a person's injuries were caused by government employees acting in the scope of their jobs. Tasks that are within an employee's discretion are nevertheless immune from suit.

Inmate management decisions, including whether to separate them from each other, are discretionary, the government argued. Therefore, there could be no claim for failing to keep David Martin and Geshik–O–Binese Martin separated. As for failing to prevent the stabbing, the U.S. Attorney's Office contended there were "multiple ways that the blade could have gotten into the yard" other than through the metal detectors, including "cheeking" it in an inmate's buttocks.

Finally, "it is simply not plausible that staff in a gun tower or in an office would have had sufficient time to react from those locations to the yard in order to intervene in a surprise attack," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer R. Lake about David Martin's failure-to-intervene claim.

Wang reviewed a series of policies and laws Martin cited, disagreeing that those mandated the Bureau of Prisons to separate inmates. However, she concluded that one section of federal code appeared to require prisons to maintain no-contact between certain inmates once there is a separation decision made. While the federal appeals court covering Colorado has not yet ruled if prisons have any discretion following a separation decision, Wang believed the code's requirement suggested they do not.

She also rejected the government's hypothesis that the knife blade could have come into the recreation yard in a manner that would have evaded the detection of security. Martin had, in her view, sufficiently alleged prison guards failed to stop the weapon from entering the yard.

"When ruling on a motion to dismiss, it is not the court’s role to credit alternative plausible explanations — which have no basis in the Complaint — to explain the blade making its way into the recreation yard, nor is it the court’s role to ascertain whether Plaintiff’s suggested series of events is the most plausible explanation of events," she wrote.

Going forward, Wang encouraged the parties to figure out whether there was, in fact, an order requiring the prison to keep Martin and his cousin separated, suggesting it was a key factual dispute in the case.

Martin, who is now incarcerated at an Indiana facility, stated in court documents that his prior attorney was a witness to the separation decision. Colorado Politics attempted to contact the named attorney, but received no immediate response.

The case is Martin v. United States.