One of the caseworkers had carried out his duties by noting in his logbook and informing his supervisor that the assailant had made statements about fighting the plaintiff and his failure to take further steps did not amount to deliberate indifference. He was later transferred to a state facility for his protection.
Head, No. Very, No.
They allegedly failed to carry out a departmental mandate for a weekly search of cells, and 62 shanks had been, at one point, found during a search of the same building where the prisoner was stabbed. A federal appeals court overturned the dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that officers failed to protect him against assault william mcfaul sex offender in West Jordan a fellow inmate.
Baca,U. The appeals court ruled that the trial court should have resolved the motion to disqualify before determining the william mcfaul sex offender in West Jordan of any dispositive motion, such as one for summary judgment, since the motion to disqualify called into question the integrity of the process in which the allegedly conflicted counsel participated.
Everett v. As to whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court ruled that there was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning what occurred during the use of force, requiring further proceedings Bourne v. A prisoner claimed to have reported that he received a letter saying that a prison gang had called for a "hit" on him because documents in his cell were used to prosecute a gang member for a murder.
Calling the dismissal under these circumstances "a miscarriage of justice," a federal appeals court vacated it, ordering further proceedings. He was later transferred to a state facility for his protection. Johnson,U. Claims against some defendants were rejected, but allowed to proceed against others, with qualified immunity issues to be resolved after further facts were determined.
Sanchez v. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no evidence that officers were subjectively aware that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm or that the sheriff's department policies or customs caused his injuries. The plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates at a medium-security prison.
A federal appeals court found that the prisoner had failed to show how the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The court found no evidence of inadequate medical care for the prisoner's injuries on the part of a prison nurse, and upheld summary judgment for other prison personnel on failure to protect claims.
A year-old male prisoner prone to disorientation and confusion and suffering from dementia sued jail officers and the county sheriff after his cellmate at the county jail severely beat him.