Estate of Johnson v. Weber, No. 14-2383 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseJohnson was a guard at the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Inmates Berget and Robert attempted to escape and intentionally murdered Johnson. Berget entered the penitentiary at age 15 after escaping repeatedly from State Training School. Berget amassed convictions for grand theft, burglary, escape, and attempt to escape. He spent most of his life in prison. His last escape attempt occurred in 1987. He did not have a history of institutional violence. Berget was transferred to segregation at times; Johnson’s estate alleges at least some transfers back to general population were negotiated to end hunger strikes. Robert had no criminal history when he arrived at the penitentiary in 2006 to serve an 80-year sentence for kidnapping. In 2007 Robert was discovered preparing for an escape attempt; he threatened a correctional officer. The estate alleges that Robert’s transfer from maximum security was to end his hunger strike. There was some forewarning of the escape attempt. The district court rejected the estate’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Although the paperwork was not always completed for the discretionary housing decisions, it was within the warden’s power to move the inmates; the Department’s policies on warden discretion do not shock the conscience and the warden did not act with deliberate indifference.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In action by the family of a prison guard slain during an escape by two prisoners against the warden and other defendants,the test the court applies to ascertain a valid substantive due process violation is whether the behavior of the government officers is so egregious and outrageous that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience; here, the defendants' actions in assigning the inmates to certain jobs which gave them a certain degree of freedom of movement and freedom from supervision did not show deliberate indifference to the guard's safety and did not shock the conscience; the Department of Corrections' policies allowing the prison warden discretion concerning housing and control of inmates did not shock the conscience.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.