Harrington v. Holder, 5:12-cv-04057

Harrington, a Fort Dodge Correctional Facility inmate, alleges Holder violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him after a kite about television rentals was sent to Holder.
Holder, a FDCF Captain, forwarded Harrington’s kite to the activity director and did not disclose it to inmates.
Harrington was assaulted by Adonis Willis on March 16, 2012; Harrington claims the assault was retaliation for the kite.
Holder testified she had no prior knowledge of any danger to Harrington and would not have released him from segregation if she had.
Harrington argues the kite’s disclosure created a substantial risk of harm and that Holder’s response was deliberately indifferent.
Judge Strand recommends granting Holder’s summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact and qualified immunity defenses supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Harrington prove a Eighth Amendment violation (deliberate indifference)?	Harrington: risk arose from kite disclosure and caused assault.	Holder: no evidence of prior knowledge or causal link.	No genuine issue of material fact; no deliberate indifference established.
Is Holder entitled to qualified immunity on Harrington’s claims?	Holder violated a clearly established right not to have kites circulated.	No clearly established right; no pre-existing knowledge.	Qualified immunity applies; Holder is shielded from liability.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (duty to protect inmates from substantial risk of harm; deliberate indifference standard)
Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2007) (deliberate indifference standard; objective and subjective components)
Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2008) (knowledge and response to substantial risk required)
Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2003) (knowledge plus inference of risk; subjective standard)
Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (negligence not enough for deliberate indifference)
Norman v. Schueltzle, 585 F.3d 1097 (8th Cir. 2009) (circulation of kites not clearly established as a right; qualified immunity analysis)