WHO IS GUILTY HERE? THE SEX OFFENDER OR THE STAFFERS? OR THE COUNTY?

     I read this story this morning and my head is still spinning from it. Let's see if we can make sense out of this together. So, an Oregon inmate whose sexual relations with two former jail staffers led to their firing and recent convictions has now filed his notice of intent to sue the county for sexual harassment. Are you kidding me? Is that even possible? 

     The inmate, identified as registered sex offender Jeng-Li Delgado-Galban (Funny! He doesn't look Chinese!) claims he was violated by the two female guards whole incarcerated at the Washington County Jail. The 25-year-old now plans to seek damages for his multiple separate, romps with the women in a supply closet. I feel like I'm reading something from the HBO series Oz. So, basically, this inmate is a registered sex offender, had consensual sex with these county jail staffers and he thinks he can sue them for sexual harassment? It doesn't get any better than this.

     According to his complaint, "These actions violated the Eighth Amendment to United States Constitution's prohibition of sexual harassment and abuse of an inmate by corrections personnel." 38-year-old, Jill Curry and 32-year-old Brett Robinson, who served as service technicians at the maximum security facility, have both since pleaded guilty to charges related to the case. Curry, who was married to a sheriff's deputy at the time, was sentenced to four years and two months in prison this past March. Both confessed to releasing the inmate from his cell for sex, but claim that he pursued and manipulated them. Listen, I get the whole firing of these staffers because they did wrong, but to allow this guy to file a sexual harassment case against the county. I'm still not sure about that. 

     During Curry's sentencing, a presiding judge remarked the tort lawsuit, saying, "He doesn't deserve the taxpayers' money. They're going to have to pay, there's no doubt in my mind." In addition to claim of sexual abuse, the prisoner's tort law also makes a point of addressing the quality of food he was been provided, specifically nutraloaf while behind bars in April and May. What the hell is nutraloaf? Apparently, that food is often used as a disciplinary meal to prisoners with it containing essential nutrients but being unappetizing enough to be considered cruel and unusual punishment by some. I think he has more of a case on that than the sexual harassment case. He's a sex offender for crying out loud. What court will believe that he's the one who was harassed? 

     The inmate argues that he didn't break any of the rules that warranted any discipline. He's reportedly behind bars for four separate cases following allegations of tampering with a witness, sexual harassment, failure to register as a sex offender, false swearing, harassment, second-degree assault and unlawful used of a weapon. So, I ask again, does this guy have a case? I guess some inmates will use any excuse for their freedom. I don't think he's winning this one. Then again, our judicial system is pretty messed up in this country.