PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) -  Oregon inmates suing Portland authorities over tear gas exposure during 2020 protests scored a win Friday, when a magistrate judge recommended that the bulk of their claims move forward.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, in a 180-page filing Friday, advised the federal court to let state law negligence claims and constitutional claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments proceed against Multnomah County, its former sheriff and two former corrections officials. The findings have been referred to U.S. District Judge Immergut, a Donald Trump appointee, who will decide whether or not to adopt them.

"Plaintiffs present evidence suggesting that defendants made several 'intentional decision[s]' with respect to the conditions under which [adults in custody] were confined," Beckerman wrote.

The class action stems from months of protests in downtown Portland that followed George Floyd's murder in the summer of 2020.

Many protests took place in front of the federal courthouse - across the street from the Multnomah County Justice Center, which houses the Multnomah County Detention Center.

On one evening in late May 2020, the protests escalated. A mob of rioters smashed through the windows of the justice center and law enforcement soon deployed tear gas inside the lobby to clear out the crowd.

That night marked the first time tear gas seeped into the jail. Over the next 100 nights, protests continued downtown, with clashes between agitators and police leading to more tear gas deployment. 

The tear gas caused inmates and detainees to cough, gag and have irritable eyes, along with significant fear, the plaintiffs have said. 

"Night after night, Multnomah County jail deputies ignored cries for help, stopped responding to emergency calls, and left the men and women trapped in their cells to suffer," the class argues in its complaint.

The county and officials argued that opening and closing air dampers in an attempt to prevent tear gas from entering the building was enough to mitigate the harm, but Beckerman disagreed.

"It is undisputed that tear gas did not always drift away from the Justice Center," Beckerman wrote. "In fact, [adults in custody] in this case declare under penalty of perjury that tear gas occasionally 'pour[ed] in through' their vents for 'hours.'"

The inmates accused the county of violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to protect them from tear gas exposure, and the county wasn't successful in convincing the magistrate judge to toss those claims. 

The record, which includes "various contemporaneous reports on tear gas infiltration and the inadequacy and clear shortcomings of mitigation efforts," was sufficient to preclude a recommendation that the county be dismissed from the lawsuit.

Beckerman also recommended that the court advance the inmates' negligence claims against the county and individual defendants, who argued that the Oregon Tort Claims Act shielded them from liability.

"A defendant is not entitled to discretionary immunity if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to a finding on which the defendant's defense depends," Beckerman wrote. "Such is the case here."

The county and officials also argued that they are entitled to a riot immunity defense, but that too failed, as did the defense that they are entitled to "apparent authority" immunity. 

"Absent any explanation or dispute about plaintiffs' purported need for discovery, defendants may not assert the affirmative defense of apparent authority immunity for the first time at summary judgment," Beckerman wrote.

The defendants also argued that the risk of harm wasn't foreseeable, but Beckerman disagreed. 

"Plaintiffs raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to protect AICs from the harm of tear gas exposure," Beckerman wrote.

During oral arguments in July, the inmates dropped their claims for inadequate medical care under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as aspects of their state law claim for negligence. Beyond that, the inmates' claims will proceed if Beckerman's recommendations are adopted by the court. 

Representatives for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Source: Courthouse News Service