Giles v. Tobeck, 895 F.3d 510

Inmate Kendrick Moore, with a history of violence, was on special monitoring but placed in general population E-POD for easier observation and scheduled for limited daily out-of-cell time.
On Oct. 8, 2014, Moore was released late and remained in the dayroom during a headcount; Officer Gabrielle Tobeck released top-tier inmates while Moore was present.
Moore hid in the showers, then sprinted to the second floor and began attacking Robert Scott; Jon Giles intervened to protect Scott and was punched and bitten by Moore.
Officers Tobeck and Matthew Meehan ordered inmates to stop and Tobeck radioed for backup; Officer Nicholas Mayo and others arrived within minutes, handcuffed Giles, removed Scott, and ultimately tasered and restrained Moore; all inmates were removed within six minutes.
Giles suffered injuries requiring hospital treatment and later sued Tobeck, Meehan, and Mayo under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect and deliberate indifference; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo, framing the legal standard under Farmer v. Brennan and requiring evidence of subjective deliberate indifference (reckless disregard) to survive summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether releasing top-tier inmates without confirming Moore's location was reckless	Giles: Tobeck acted recklessly by letting inmates out while Moore was unaccounted for	Tobeck: At the time Moore was scheduled for dayroom; release was at most negligent	Release was negligent at worst, not reckless; no Eighth Amendment violation
Whether ordering Moore to return (vs. escorting him) was reckless	Giles: Ordering Moore to lock up left inmates’ safety to Moore and was insufficient	Tobeck/Meehan: An order was a reasonable exercise of authority; escorting was not required	Court: Reasonable to rely on Moore’s verbal compliance; not reckless despite poor judgment
Whether officers’ response once attack began was deliberately indifferent	Giles: Officers failed to protect him during the assault and could have acted faster	Defendants: They called for backup and acted promptly to restore order and restrain Moore	Officers responded reasonably; their actions did not amount to deliberate indifference
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Giles: Disputed facts created triable issue on recklessness/deliberate indifference	Defendants: Undisputed evidence shows they were not reckless and they responded reasonably	Affirmed: summary judgment proper because no reasonable jury could find reckless disregard

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison officials must have subjective knowledge and be deliberately indifferent to risk of harm)
Dale v. Poston, 548 F.3d 563 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard applied at summary judgment)
Fisher v. Lovejoy, 414 F.3d 659 (reckless disregard standard and reasonableness in responding to inmate violence)
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (response must not effectively condone attack to be constitutionally deficient)
Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816 (negligence or gross negligence insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim)
Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.3d 934 (officer reckless when relying on inmate’s promise to control others)
Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812 (reversal where guard knew of security risk but still released victim)
O'Brien v. Indiana Dep't of Corr., 495 F.3d 505 (mistaken reliance on inmate assurances can be nonconstitutional error)
Shields v. Dart, 664 F.3d 178 (calling for backup reasonable response to inmate violence)
Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d 852 (failure to choose best tactic not a constitutional violation)
Peate v. McCann, 294 F.3d 879 (same: mere tactical errors do not establish constitutional violation)