Raudenbush, III v. Taylor, 2:14-cv-00295

Background

Plaintiff Raudenbush, a TDOC minimum-security inmate, was transferred from the Annex to the compound (Unit 7) on September 20, 2013 after an altercation in the Annex; he alleged the transfer increased his risk of harm.
On September 24, 2013 Raudenbush mailed a sealed letter to Warden Sharon Taylor reporting that his cellmate Christian had stolen from him and had shown him a knife; Taylor wrote a note instructing staff to talk to and move Raudenbush if necessary.
Early on September 25, 2013 Raudenbush was assaulted in his cell by inmate House (who allegedly gained access after Christian opened the door); Raudenbush claims he had warned several officers he feared for his safety.
Plaintiff sued several NECX staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (failure to protect), and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault/battery; some defendants and medical-care claims had been previously dismissed.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of personal involvement, lack of deliberate indifference, insufficient notice, and Eleventh Amendment immunity; the court granted summary judgment dismissing all remaining claims against all defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants can be held liable under § 1983 for failure to protect	Raudenbush contends Taylor and certain officers had actual notice of threats (letters and in-person warnings) and were deliberately indifferent	Defendants argue no personal involvement or actual notice (except Taylor read the Sept. 24 letter and instructed staff to investigate); mere supervisory status or inaction is insufficient	Court: § 1983 claims dismissed. Taylor’s reading of the letter showed reasonable response (instructed staff); other defendants lacked evidence of personal knowledge or deliberate indifference
Whether a transfer from Annex to compound created a protected liberty interest	Raudenbush contends transfer put him in a more dangerous, "gang" unit creating atypical and significant hardship	Defendants argue transfer within prison does not implicate constitutionally protected liberty interest absent atypical hardship	Court: Transfer did not create protected liberty interest; no Eighth Amendment violation from transfer alone
Whether officers’ searches and responses were objectively reasonable after alleged warnings about Christian	Raudenbush says he told Officers Chance and Lewis Christian had a knife and they failed to protect him	Defendants say officers conducted cell search and took reasonable steps; plaintiff cannot prove officers had actual, specific knowledge of a substantial risk	Court: Officers took reasonable steps (searches); summary judgment for defendants on this claim
State-law torts (intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault & battery)	Raudenbush alleges outrageous conduct and failure to protect causing severe emotional injury and that defendants’ actions caused imminent fear or contact	Defendants argue conduct, at most, was negligent and there is no evidence defendants committed overt acts causing imminent fear or touched plaintiff	Court: State-law claims dismissed—evidence shows negligence at best; no outrageous conduct, no overt acts or contact by defendants

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (Eighth Amendment standard for cruel and unusual punishment)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials must take reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety; deliberate indifference standard)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (substantial risk of serious harm requirement)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest analysis for atypical and significant hardship)
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (transfer does not create liberty interest absent atypical hardship)
Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416 (6th Cir. 1984) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires active or knowing acquiescence)
Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 1999) (supervisor liability must be based on active unconstitutional behavior)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (court must view record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Marsh v. Arn, 937 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1991) (deliberate indifference requires obduracy and wantonness)
Knight v. Gill, 999 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1993) (prison officials’ duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates)