Norman v. Schuetzle, et al; Norman v. Wrolstad (MLW No. 59822/Case No. 08-1686/08-2219 – 33 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Hansen, J.)
(1)Where an inmate brought a civil rights action against prison officials for their alleged failure to protect him from an assault by another inmate, the inmate did not show that the prison warden was aware of a substantial risk that he would be attacked, and he also did not show that a case worker was deliberately indifferent to an risk of attack so the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to the warden and case worker.
(2)Where an inmate who was attacked by another inmate brought a civil rights action against a prison official alleging that the official tried to incite the attack against the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not show that the official’s alleged act of showing the plaintiff’s grievance letters to other inmates violated the plaintiff’s rights, so the denial of qualified immunity is reversed.
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Bye, J.: “I conclude, as did the district court, Schwehr actually knew of the substantial risk to Norman but recklessly disregarded the known risk by failing to take reasonable measures to protect him….
“I concur in the majority’s decision reversing the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Warden Schuetzle. I respectfully dissent from Parts II.B, II.C, II.D, and III of the opinion because, based on the facts as alleged, a reasonable jury could conclude the remaining appellants violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment focused upon prison inmate James Norman.”
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Norman v. Schuetzle, et al; Norman v. Wrolstad (MLW No. 59822/Case No. 08-1686/08-2219 – 33 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Hansen, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, Miller, J. (William George Peterson, Bismarck, N.D., argued for appellant) (Paul Reginald Sanderson, Bismarck, N.D., argued for appellee).