Derrick Averhart v. Warden, 590 F. App'x 873

Plaintiff Derrick Averhart, an Alabama state prisoner, was stabbed by another inmate and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Averhart named Correctional Officer Antwan Kendrick and four supervisors (Warden Davenport, Asst. Warden Headley, Commissioner Thomas, Sergeant Mason).
District court dismissed claims against the four supervisors under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim.
District court granted summary judgment for Kendrick on Averhart’s Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; Kendrick also asserted qualified immunity.
Averhart appealed dismissal of supervisors and summary judgment for Kendrick, arguing supervisory liability, failure to follow ADOC rules, failure to prevent the stabbing, and failure to intervene immediately.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of supervisors and summary judgment for Kendrick (and noted Kendrick would be entitled to qualified immunity if the court were wrong on the merits).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Supervisory liability under § 1983	Supervisors were legally responsible for Averhart’s safety and thus liable	Supervisors lacked personal participation or causal connection to the attack; respondeat superior not applicable	Dismissal affirmed: complaint alleged only legal conclusions, no facts showing supervisors knew of or caused risk
Deliberate indifference—failure to prevent attack	Kendrick violated ADOC rules, failed to prevent stabbing, and delayed intervention, showing deliberate indifference	Kendrick faced a sudden armed attacker, was unarmed, could not radio for backup, and ran for backup rather than recklessly disregarding risk	Summary judgment for Kendrick affirmed: random-violence case, no evidence Kendrick knew of substantial risk; negligence insufficient for deliberate indifference
Failure to intervene immediately	Delay in intervention constituted conscious disregard of serious risk	Tactical decision to seek backup was reasonable under circumstances (unarmed, attacker with knife)	Court held decision to seek backup did not show knowing or reckless disregard; no genuine issue of material fact
Qualified immunity	Kendrick violated clearly established right by failing to intervene	Even if constitutional violation, reasonable officer in Kendrick’s position could have acted as he did	Court affirmed summary judgment and noted Kendrick would be entitled to qualified immunity if the merits were otherwise

Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead facts showing plausible claim)
Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2002) (conclusory allegations insufficient)
LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993) (§ 1983 requires causal link between defendant and harm)
Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2010) (supervisory liability requires personal participation or causal connection)
Burton v. Tampa Housing Auth., 271 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir. 1995) (failure to prevent inmate-on-inmate violence can be deliberate indifference if official knew of substantial risk)