Leite v. Bergeron
911 F.3d 47
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- On Aug. 24, 2012, inmate Jonathan Leite was beaten in Cell 9 at Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility and later suffered serious head injuries and cognitive deficits.
- Leite had been assigned to a dayroom bunk (not Cell 9); attackers concealed his injuries and cleaned up blood/vomit to avoid detection.
- Rounds (hourly, cursory safety checks) and formal counts (more thorough, require inmates to stand and be identified) were distinct; counts occurred later and revealed Leite’s condition.
- Officer Kathy Bergeron conducted a 3:40 p.m. round; surveillance does not establish whether she looked into Cell 9. Leite was discovered during a 5:00 p.m. count and received medical attention shortly thereafter.
- Leite sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Bergeron was deliberately indifferent by failing to look into cells during the 3:40 p.m. round, causing a delay in care; the district court granted summary judgment for Bergeron and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bergeron was deliberately indifferent by failing to look into cells during the 3:40 p.m. round | Leite: if Bergeron had looked into Cell 9 she would have found him injured and would have summoned care earlier | Bergeron: no evidence she knew or strongly suspected an inmate was injured; rounds are cursory and she reported the block "clear" | No — no reasonable juror could find Bergeron had the subjective knowledge required for deliberate indifference |
| Whether willful blindness/suspicion suffices instead of actual knowledge | Leite: Bergeron’s customary cursory rounds show willful blindness to risk | Bergeron: no evidence she suspected injury; inmates actively concealed injuries | No — no evidence Bergeron had any strong suspicion to trigger liability for willful blindness |
| Whether generalized risk or pattern of not looking during rounds can establish subjective knowledge | Leite: testimony that Bergeron’s "normal practice" was to hurry rounds without looking into cells | Bergeron: no claim that prison policy or practice amounted to deliberate indifference; plaintiff did not develop this argument | Court: Plaintiff failed to develop a policy/practice theory; generalized risk alone insufficient |
| Whether qualified immunity issue required decision | Bergeron: asserted qualified immunity | Leite: challenged deliberate indifference only | Court: did not reach qualified immunity because summary judgment was appropriate on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (establishes two-part Eighth Amendment test: objective seriousness and subjective deliberate indifference)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (deliberate indifference requires more than negligence)
- Gaudreault v. Municipality of Salem, 923 F.2d 203 (1st Cir. 1990) (defines serious medical need standard)
- Zingg v. Groblewski, 907 F.3d 630 (1st Cir. 2018) (emphasizes subjective knowledge requirement for deliberate indifference)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (deliberate indifference involves obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence)
- Calderón-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002) (discusses relevance of generalized vs. personal risk under Farmer)
- Giroux v. Somerset County, 178 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (compares deliberate indifference standard to criminal recklessness)