Prisons & Jails – Inmate Says Jailers Ignored Safety Threats

Cox v. Quinn (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-129-16, 22 pp.) (Harris, J.) No. 15-6943, July 6, 2016; USDC at Roanoke, Va. (Conrad, J.) 4th Cir.

Holding: Plaintiff inmate who was severely beaten by another inmate allegedly had complained multiple times to defendant correctional officials about threats from other inmates in his pod, and a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants had information that plaintiff faced a serious danger to his safety; the 4th Circuit affirms denial of qualified immunity for defendants in the inmate’s suit for damages.

The district court correctly held that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment for defendant correctional officers on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. There is ample evidence suggesting the four defendants were subjectively aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and drew the inference. Plaintiff submitted numerous “blue slips” complaining that he was being threatened by identified inmates; he repeatedly informed defendants that he feared for his safety and wished either to be moved from the pod or to have the other inmates moved; and plaintiff expressly requested that the correctional officials not discuss his concerns with the inmates who were threatening him because he feared that would put him at even greater risk. Plaintiff renewed his plea for help with one defendant officer only a short time before the beating actually occurred.

A sergeant testified at deposition that he specially told defendants to remove plaintiff from the pod and lock it down if plaintiff feared for his safety. But instead of taking this – or another – reasonable action to protect plaintiff, the officers opted to do the very thing plaintiff warned them would lead to disaster: They directly confronted the inmates who were threatening plaintiff.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a jury could conclude that defendants’ response to plaintiff’s concerns – seeking, but disregarding the sergeant’s’ advice, and taking the one action plaintiff specifically warned would put him at greater risk – was not only unreasonable, but so patently inadequate as to justify an inference that defendants actually recognized that their response to the risk was inappropriate under the circumstances.

It has long been established that jail officials have a duty to protect inmates from a substantial and known risk of harm, including harm inflicted by other prisoners. By 2011, we had made it clear that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he ignores repeated requests from a vulnerable inmate to be separated from a fellow inmate who has issued violent threats which the aggressor will likely carry out in the absence of official intervention.

Judgment affirmed.