01-3564 Case v. Ahitow, et al.

Listen to this article

“[T]he behavior alleged by Case satisfies the deliberate-indifference standard. … Even if Case cannot at trial sustain his claim that the defendants used Jones as their instrument to assault him (for the trier of fact might disbelieve the inmate’s testimony, which Smith denied, about Smith’s conversation with Jones), the other evidence that we have summarized, if believed by the trier of fact, would establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Remember that the test is whether the guards know that the plaintiff inmate faces a serious danger to his safety and they could avert the danger easily yet they fail to do so. There is evidence that the defendants knew that Jones posed a serious danger to Case, and they could have averted the danger easily either by leaving Case in segregation (it is common to place prisoners in segregation for their own protection) or by placing the predatory Jones in segregation or at least by assigning him to work in a part of the prison not traversed three times a day by Case. No more is necessary to establish deliberate indifference and so a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

“Prisons are dangerous but Case was not a victim of the inherent, as it were the baseline, dangerousness of prison life, but, if his story is true, either of a plot by the guards to punish him or a failure of protection so egregious as to bring this case within the rare category of meritorious Eighth Amendment claims by prisoners. ‘If his story is true …’ – the plaintiff is entitled to a trial, but of course the trier of fact may disbelieve his evidence, all or most of which comes from inmates, who tend not to be highly credible witnesses.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McDade, J., Posner, J.