Christopher Uriah Alsobrook v. Sergeant Alvarado, 656 F. App'x 489

Background

On June 6, 2009, cellmate McCloud assaulted Alsobrook, repeatedly striking him and using a battery in a sock; Alsobrook sustained visible head and facial injuries and heavy bleeding.
Earlier the same morning McCloud told guard Alvarado he and Alsobrook would “have some problems” and asked to be separated; Alvarado declined to reassign the inmates.
During the assault, guards Alvarado and Medina arrived but did not intervene; after the fight Medina required both inmates to be handcuffed before opening the cell but left them together when McCloud refused.
Alsobrook waited approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes before being taken to the infirmary; treatment was limited (Motrin) and a nurse ordered no further care.
Alsobrook sued Alvarado (failure to protect), Medina (deliberate indifference to medical needs/delay), and two supervisory officials (Secretary Jones, Warden Harris); district court granted summary judgment to all four; Eleventh Circuit affirms for Alvarado but reverses for Medina, Jones, and Harris and remands.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alvarado was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by refusing to separate McCloud and Alsobrook after threats	Alleges McCloud’s explicit threats to Alvarado put him on notice and required protective action	Alvarado contends remarks were vague and insufficient to show subjective awareness of substantial risk	Affirmed for Alvarado: vague statements, without more, do not show the requisite subjective knowledge
Whether Medina’s 1 hr 40 min delay in obtaining medical care constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs	Alsobrook argues injuries were serious, Medina knew, delay was unjustified and constituted deliberate indifference	Medina argues injuries were not serious and delay was justified by a regulation requiring inmates be handcuffed before opening cell doors	Reversed for Medina: under law of the case injuries and Medina’s awareness are for jury; Medina conceded regulation wouldn’t bar entry for a serious need, so delay could be deliberate indifference
Whether Medina is entitled to qualified immunity for leaving Alsobrook without prompt treatment	Alsobrook: existing precedent showed delays like this violate Eighth Amendment, so right was clearly established	Medina: claims qualified immunity because conduct was permitted by prison regulation and not clearly unlawful	Qualified immunity denied at summary judgment stage: Aldridge precedent made violation clearly established
Whether Secretary Jones and Warden Harris are liable based on subordinates’ conduct	Alsobrook: supervisory liability based on Alvarado/Medina actions and policies	Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation so no supervisory liability	Reversed for Jones and Harris as to Medina-related claims; district court must address claims in first instance on remand

Key Cases Cited

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness and drawing of inference of substantial risk)
Aldridge v. Montgomery, 753 F.2d 970 (11th Cir. 1985) (two-and-a-half hour delay in treating bleeding wound violated constitutional rights)
Lancaster v. Monroe Cty., 116 F.3d 1419 (11th Cir. 1997) (deliberate indifference to serious medical need defined)
Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2000) (elements for deliberate indifference to medical need and assessing delay)
Youmans v. Gagnon, 626 F.3d 557 (11th Cir. 2010) (clearly established law requires preexisting law to make unlawfulness obvious)
Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 230 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2000) (law-of-the-case doctrine exceptions for new evidence)
Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity two-step: violation and clearly established right)