Where four prison officials recognized a risk of harm to an inmate, and their response was, at worst, negligent, they prevailed on the inmate’s deliberate indifference claim.
Background
Harris Ford, an inmate in the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction prison system, commenced this action against six prison officials — Katy Poole, Dean Locklear, Karen Henderson, Queen Gerald, Jerry Ingram and Cameron Gaddy — under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that, by failing to protect him from a fellow inmate who attacked him with a shank and severely injured him, the prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Ford alleged that he had made prison officials aware of the risk of such an attack by filing numerous complaints and grievances but that the officials were deliberately indifferent to them, giving rise to the attack.
In circumstances such as those presented here, the prisoner must show both (1) “that the [prison] official in question subjectively recognized a substantial risk of harm” and (2) that the official also “subjectively recognized” that any actions he took in response “were inappropriate in light of that risk.” The district court granted the prison officials summary judgment, concluding that Ford’s complaints and grievances had not been sufficiently specific to enable the officials to investigate and respond and that Ford had failed to demonstrate the mens rea of deliberate indifference necessary for an Eighth Amendment violation.
Poole
Not only did Poole have no knowledge of any substantial risk of harm to Ford, she did not recognize that her response to the letter, directing an investigation, was an inappropriate one. In short, Ford failed to present evidence demonstrating that Poole exhibited deliberate indifference to Ford’s circumstances.
Four officers
With respect to Ford’s claims against Locklear, Henderson, Gaddy and Gerald, he adequately demonstrated that these prison officials subjectively recognized a substantial risk of harm. But he has not presented sufficient evidence to show that these officials were deliberately indifferent to his complaints because he has not demonstrated that they consciously disregarded the risks that he described — i.e., that they recognized that their responses were “inappropriate.”
Ford does argue that the prison officials could have shown him “photos of gang members to help identify the source of the threats” or could have consulted with gang investigators “to determine whether and why Mr. Ford was being targeted.” This argument, however, amounts, at most, to one that the officials’ responses were “unreasonable” because there was more that they could have done. But such negligence is not enough to make an Eighth Amendment claim.
Ingram
As to Ford’s claim against Ingram, Ingram knew of Ford’s complaints and responded to them. Indeed, Ingram tried more forcefully to investigate them by pressing yet harder for the identification of the perpetrators. But in doing so, his conduct raised a question of fact as to whether his response actually revealed a conscious disregard of a serious risk of harm that he knew was inappropriate.
Ford claims that Ingram, while carrying out his investigation of Ford’s complaints, came to Ford’s cell and “yell[ed] in a very loud voice” “[w]ithin ear shot of other inmates on the unit” that if Ford “want[ed] protective custody” he would have to tell him “who in here [he had] a problem with.” Ford showed further that Ingram then left his cell and came back “yelling [about] the same thing” and then “asked [Ford] for a statement.” Ford asserted that as a result, “all the inmates heard what was said and now they want[ed] to harm” him because they thought he was a “snitch.”
It is thus significant that while Ingram asked Ford, who he had a problem with and why he wanted protective custody, by doing so in such a public manner, Ingram may perhaps have knowingly exacerbated the danger to Ford that officers had already recognized. In light of this evidence, as viewed most favorably to Ford, there were genuine factual disputes over whether Ingram consciously disregarded a known risk of harm to Ford and whether such conscious disregard, if shown, was a sufficient cause of the harm Ford suffered.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.
Ford v. Hooks, Case No. 21-7647, July 16, 2024. 4th Cir. (Niemeyer), from MDNC at Greensboro (Biggs). Abigail Haglage for Appellant. Orlando Luis Rodriguez for Appellees. 11 pp.