This case arises from Pierce County’s failure to protect Nathaniel Woods from an assault by another inmate at the Pierce County Jail.
The jail acknowledged that “individuals who commit sex offenses against children get assaulted in jail.” The Plaintiff asserted that Pierce County was negligent because it failed to place Woods in protective custody, even though he was a convicted sex offender.
Defendants filed a motion to strike the declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert Ayers.
Corrections Expert Witness
Robert L. Ayers, Jr. has over 50 years of experience in the corrections environment. He was employed as a correctional officer for San Quentin California State Prison for 18 years, working a variety of assignments through the rank of Lieutenant.
For eight additional years, Ayers worked in a women’s prison and in departmental headquarters, where his responsibilities included budget and fiscal oversight. In 1994, Ayers was appointed as the Chief Deputy Warden at Pelican Bay State Prison. Ayers retired from California State service in 2000 but continued to be involved in administrative oversight of the California prison system. In 2005, Ayers was appointed Warden of the San Quentin prison. Ayers retired in 2008 but has remained active as a corrections consultant in a variety of forums.
Discussion by the Court
Ayers opined that “it is common knowledge throughout law enforcement and corrections that sex offenders, especially those involving children, are universally subjected to predation by other inmates.” It also is commonly known that inmates demand to see other inmates’ court documents “to identify inmates who, because of their charges, are either unwelcome or will be assaulted.” Ayers also took issue with the jail’s failure to offer protective custody.
Defendants did not challenge Ayers’ qualifications to offer opinions on the standard of care nor do they assert Ayers has failed to reliably apply any principles or methods to the fact of the case. They asserted only that Ayers was offering impermissible legal conclusions.
In general, expert testimony is required when an essential element in the case is best established by an opinion beyond the expertise of a lay person. Here, the Court found that Ayers offered appropriate standard of care opinions and that such opinions did not amount to impermissible legal conclusions.
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Robert L. Ayers, Jr.
Key Takeaway
The question of whether prison officials acted reasonably to secure the safety of an inmate is not one within the realm of the everyday experiences of a lay person.
Thus, expert testimony or supporting evidence is necessary to establish whether reasonable care was exercised.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Pessanha-Maule V. Pierce County |
| Docket Number: | 3:24cv5601 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Western |
| Order Date: | March 06, 2026 |
Leave a Reply