LUTHER POYNTER, by and through his guardian, Anita Fernandez v. AARON BENNETT, in his official capacity as Barren County Jailer; BARREN COUNTY, KENTUCKY - Articles

All Content

LUTHER POYNTER, by and through his guardian, Anita Fernandez v. AARON BENNETT, in his official capacity as Barren County Jailer; BARREN COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Dec 17, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: William M. Butler, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Aaron D. Smith, ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY, LLP, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: William M. Butler, Jr., Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 3: Aaron D. Smith, John A. Sowell, ENGLISH, LUCAS, PRIEST & OWSLEY, LLP, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Judge(s): MOORE, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Luther Poynter was incarcerated in the Barren County Detention Center (“BCDC”) on December 25, 2020, for contempt of court due to his failure to pay child support. On December 28, BCDC moved Poynter to a general-population cell, where Scotty Wix and Timothy Guess were also housed. Within one minute and thirty seconds of Poynter entering the cell, Guess and Wix attacked him, punching him repeatedly in the head. Poynter suffered a traumatic brain injury from the assault and is permanently impaired. Collectively, Wix and Guess had assaulted other detained persons in their cells in BCDC eleven times before they attacked Poynter, but BCDC nevertheless continued to house them in general- population cells. Poynter, by and through his guardian and sister, Anita Fernandez, sued Aaron Bennett, in his official capacity as Barren County Jailer, and Barren County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were deliberately indifferent to his safety. Following discovery, Bennett and Barren County moved for summary judgment, arguing that Poynter failed to show that he suffered a constitutional violation. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that Poynter failed to show that his constitutional rights were violated or that Barren County was liable for the violation. Poynter timely appealed. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s summary-judgment ruling and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: