674 F. App'x 531
6th Cir.2017Background
- Twelve-year-old Jamie Mangum (4'6", ~96 lbs.) was housed in Marion Juvenile Corrections Facility Unit 4B with 18‑year‑old sex offender Darrel Saxon; Mangum had prior sexual victimization and was placed on a safety plan and precautionary status.
- Psychology assistant Jason Wise treated both youths, documented multiple reports by Mangum that Saxon was approaching or threatening him, and repeatedly submitted clinical notes, incident statements, risk‑assessment updates, and recommended Saxon’s transfer.
- Officer Gary Repp worked on the unit and knew Saxon was a sex offender and that Mangum was small, but testified he was unaware of any sexual targeting before March 20; another youth later testified at Saxon’s criminal trial that he told Repp he saw Saxon and Mangum “doing something” in the mop closet.
- Unit manager Ray Bowman intervened after a March 11 altercation, warned Saxon to stay away from Mangum, and encouraged Mangum to report further problems; Bowman had limited contact and no independent knowledge of sexual assaults.
- On March 20 Mangum disclosed multiple sexual assaults by Saxon; Saxon was removed and later convicted. Mangum sued Wise, Repp, and Bowman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Wise and Bowman and for Repp by majority; Judge Boggs concurred in part and would have reversed as to Repp, finding a triable issue based on the mop‑closet report to Repp.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of sexual assault | Mangum: Wise, Repp, Bowman knew facts showing Saxon posed a substantial risk and failed to take reasonable protective measures | Defendants: They lacked subjective knowledge of a substantial risk or responded reasonably given their roles and authority limits | Court: Objective risk satisfied; Wise and Bowman not deliberately indifferent; Repp also ruled for defendants by majority (concurrence would reverse Repp) |
| Sufficiency of Wise’s response to known threats | Mangum: Wise should have done more to protect him from Saxon despite warnings | Wise: He maintained and updated a safety plan, documented and reported threats, and sought Saxon’s transfer—he lacked authority to move inmates himself | Held: Wise took reasonable steps; evidence shows awareness but not conscious disregard; summary judgment affirmed |
| Repp’s awareness and failure to act after mop‑closet tip | Mangum: Cash’s testimony that he told Repp creates an inference Repp knew and failed to investigate | Repp: He testified he had no knowledge of sexual targeting before March 20 and reported immediately once aware | Held: Majority—Cash’s statement alone insufficient to show Repp subjectively knew of a substantial risk; summary judgment affirmed. Boggs J.—would reverse for a triable issue |
| Whether Bowman's actions amounted to deliberate indifference | Mangum: Bowman failed to report and adequately protect after being told Saxon pursued him | Bowman: He confronted Saxon, warned him, encouraged Mangum to report, and lacked ongoing personal knowledge or authority to move youths | Held: Bowman’s response was reasonable under Eighth Amendment; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials must not be deliberately indifferent to substantial risk of inmate‑on‑inmate violence)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (deliberate indifference is a stringent standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and credibility role of court)
- Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Bishop v. Hackel, 636 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2011) (Eighth Amendment claim for inmate sexual assault; awareness based on vulnerabilities and predatory status)
- Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference distinguished from negligence)
- Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001) (objective component: incarceration under conditions posing substantial risk)
- Little Caesar Enters., Inc. v. OPPCO, LLC, 219 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment inferences for nonmovant)