SHIELDS OF SHAME | CLAYTON COUNTY JAIL INVESTIGATION
Victor Hill, Raheem Peterkin and the Civil Lawsuit Against CorrectHealth
After a sheriff’s federal criminal conviction, a civil lawsuit raises questions about the responsibilities of medical personnel inside the jail.
Victor Hill CorrectHealth Lawsuit: The Video That Started It All
The December 2019 Restraint-Chair Incident
Raheem Peterkin was booked into Clayton County Jail on December 8, 2019. His civil complaint alleges then-Sheriff Victor Hill ordered him placed into a restraint chair without a qualifying safety justification, that restraints caused pain and injury, and that he remained confined for hours without adequate toileting access. These are allegations in the civil action; their precise details must be evaluated against the evidence.
The Federal Criminal Conviction
A federal jury convicted Victor Hill of violating civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 in connection with restraint-chair abuses. The source article reports that the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. That criminal judgment concerns Hill’s conduct and does not automatically establish liability for other defendants in Peterkin’s separate civil lawsuit.
The Civil Lawsuit Against CorrectHealth
Peterkin’s lawsuit alleges CorrectHealth Clayton, a contracted jail healthcare provider, failed to intervene while staff observed the restraint. The central question is whether the company’s conduct, policies or customs support civil liability. CorrectHealth disputes those claims.
CorrectHealth’s Defense
CorrectHealth’s filings argue that medical personnel examined Peterkin, checked vital signs, provided medication and requested repositioning of his hands to address discomfort. It also disputes the characterization of its relationship to personnel present that day. Those contentions should be understood as the defense’s position, not findings by a court.
Restraint and Seclusion Policy
The original reporting describes a written policy limiting restraints to necessary uses, prohibiting punishment, requiring medical authorization and monitoring, and addressing circulation checks, hydration, food and toileting. Whether the relevant provisions applied and were violated is a contested issue.
Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony
The parties dispute what the medical documentation shows about the care Peterkin received and whether staff should have intervened. Peterkin retained correctional healthcare consultant Johnnie R. Lambert; CorrectHealth challenged aspects of her opinions and qualifications. Medical monitoring and constitutional obligations are related but distinct questions.
Discovery and Deposition Evidence
The litigation includes document requests, medical records, contract and policy materials, expert testimony, depositions and summary-judgment briefing. Peterkin was deposed in April 2025. Some material is subject to confidentiality restrictions and may not be publicly accessible.
Procedural Status and Caution
The original Shields of Shame article reports a September 2025 summary-judgment motion and a July 14, 2026 order reopening the case and restoring pending motions. That is the last procedural development established by the transferred source; it is not a verification of the case’s status today. The outcome of the civil claims against CorrectHealth should not be presumed.
Why the Case Matters
The case examines an accountability question beyond the criminal prosecution of a sheriff: what responsibilities do contracted medical professionals and their employers have when allegedly witnessing harmful custodial restraint? The answer depends on the facts, contracts, governing law and court rulings.
Original Photographs and Restraint-Chair Images
The original images remain hosted on the previous Shields of Shame website. Click to open the full file in a new tab.
Follow the Primary Sources
Original investigative article (editor access) ↗
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia ↗
Editorial note: This transfer preserves the original source media and distinguishes a proven criminal conviction from disputed civil allegations. Civil docket status has not been independently refreshed.