Norman v. Schuetzle (CA8)

Something bad happened in   Norman v. Schuetzle, No. 08-1686 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2009) (here).  From the Clerk's unofficial summary:

[PUBLISHED] [Hansen, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Warden was entitled to qualified immunity on failure-to-protect claim as there was no evidence he knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiff's safety and the risk was not so obvious that a reasonable prison official would have noticed it; court could not say case worker violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when he logged a possible threat to plaintiff and notified his supervisor but failed to take any further action, and the case worker was entitled toqualified immunity; similarly, a second caseworker's failure to take additional action was not a constitutional violation, and she was entitled to qualified immunity; existing case law did not put defendant Wrolstadon notice that his actions in showing plaintiff's kites to other inmates would put plaintiff at a substantial risk of harm from other inmates, thereby violating his rights, and, as a result, Wrolstad was entitled toqualified immunity on plaintiff's claims that his actions violatedplaintiff's rights. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
There was a dissent.  I'm guessing this is the issue: "existing case law did not put defendant Wrolstadon notice that his actions in showing plaintiff's kites to other inmates would put plaintiff at a substantial risk of harm from other inmates."  Judges who want to let a defendant off make you point to nearly identical factual case in order to get past qualified immunity.  When I have time to review the opinion, we'll see if my guess was right.

0 comments: