Deliberate Indifference

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Livell Figgs v. Alex Dawson et al

Case No.: 15-2926

Officials: POSNER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges, and ALONSO, District Judge.*

Focus: Deliberate Indifference

Respondent not entitled to qualified immunity

“At the time Figgs presented his complaints, it was clearly established by decisions in closely analogous cases that the failure to investigate a claim that an inmate is being held longer than the lawful term of his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment if it is the result of indifference. See Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354‐55 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Eighth Amendment is violated when prolonged detention is the result of deliberate indifference, where prison officials failed to investigate claims in prisoner’s letter questioning the method used to compute his release date); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1108‐10 (3d Cir. 1989) (holding same, where senior record officer failed to take substantive action on prisoner’s claim that he was being held despite the expiration of his sentence); Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392, 1397‐99 (9th Cir. 1990)(rejecting defendants’ qualified immunity argument and concluding that the right to be free from incarceration beyond the expiration of one’s sentence was clearly established, where prison officials failed to investigate the prisoner’s claim that he was incorrectly denied credit for time served in a foreign jail). While, to be clearly established, “a right must be specific to the relevant factual context of a cited case and not generalized with respect to the Amendment that is the basis of the claim,” the “very action in question” need not have previously been held unlawful for a public official to have reasonable notice of the illegality of some action. Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707, 710‐11 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198‐99 (2004) and Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Figgs, the evidence supports his claim that Fishel’s conduct violated his established constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, Fishel is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

Affirmed in part

Vacated and remanded in part

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.