Smith v. Brenoettsy

What This Case Is About

Eric Smith, a prisoner at Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, sued guard Steve Brengettsy and Warden John Whitley under § 1983 after Brengettsy allegedly stabbed Smith. Smith claimed Whitley’s failure to supervise Brengettsy—despite receiving multiple letters warning of Brengettsy’s threats and verbal abuse—enabled the stabbing. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Whitley’s interlocutory appeal because his arguments raised only factual disputes, not separable legal issues.

The Facts

Brengettsy allegedly verbally abused and threatened Smith for approximately two weeks before stabbing him in the stomach on January 10, 1993. Smith sought help from another guard (Lt. Griffin) and Brengettsy’s shift supervisor (Major Andrews), but both refused to become involved.

Smith wrote several letters to Warden Whitley. The December 23 letter reported “constantly being verbally abused” by Brengettsy. The December 31 letter again requested help getting Brengettsy “to back off with his treats (sic), and verbal abuse” and noted that Lt. Griffin had said the matter was between Smith and Brengettsy to work out. Both letters concluded with pleas for Whitley to investigate. A fourth letter was mailed on January 6, 1993, but did not arrive until after the stabbing. Whitley apparently took no action on any of the letters he received.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Whitley raised three legal arguments: (1) Smith’s letters were not specific enough to warn of a “substantial risk of serious harm”; (2) his failure to investigate was objectively reasonable given that LSPA receives over 6,000 complaints annually; and (3) Smith could not prove Whitley actually drew the inference of substantial risk.

The court rejected all three. On specificity, the court noted that a prisoner need not warn of the precise act the subordinate will commit—only that the official be “aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists.” On reasonableness, the volume of complaints cuts both ways and does not, by itself, make ignoring a specific complaint reasonable. On drawing the inference, the court noted that under Farmer v. Brennan, a factfinder may conclude an official knew of a substantial risk “from the very fact that the risk was obvious”—a factual question the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve on interlocutory appeal.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Written complaints create a record. Smith’s letters to the warden created a paper trail that was essential to his failure-to-supervise claim. If you are in custody and face threats, documenting your complaints in writing to supervisory officials creates evidence of their knowledge.

Deliberate indifference requires awareness and failure to act. A supervisory official must be aware of facts suggesting a substantial risk of serious harm and must draw the inference that such risk exists—but that inference can be proven circumstantially, including by showing the risk was obvious.

Volume of complaints is not an excuse. A prison warden cannot escape liability simply because the prison receives thousands of complaints annually. Each complaint must be assessed on its own terms.

Supervisory liability requires a causal link. To hold a supervisor liable, you must show: (1) the supervisor failed to train or supervise; (2) a causal connection between that failure and the violation of your rights; and (3) the failure amounted to deliberate indifference.

Key Takeaway

When a prisoner writes letters to a warden warning of a guard’s threats and verbal abuse, and the warden takes no action before the guard physically harms the prisoner, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the warden acted with deliberate indifference. Written complaints to supervisory officials are powerful evidence in failure-to-supervise claims because they document the official’s knowledge of the risk and their failure to respond.