Ross v. Correction Officers John & Jane Does 1-5
610 F. App'x 75
2d Cir.2015Background
- Ross sues Mullings, Hill, Cuin, Johnson, and the City of New York under §1983 and state law for failure to protect him from inmate violence in a DOC facility.
- The July 31, 2012 attack left Ross with a six-inch facial laceration; five inmates assaulted him while Mullings was the sole guard on post but not inside the cellblock.
- Hill was in the cellblock’s command center overlooking the block; Mullings left his post, contrary to DOC policy, during the attack.
- Ross contends the attack was gang-related and alleges Mullings had risk knowledge; Mullings had no prior contact with Ross or gang information.
- The District Court granted summary judgment on most claims, denied qualified immunity to Mullings, and retained supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; on appeal, Mullings seeks qualified immunity and dismissal of the state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity. | Ross argues Mullings knew of risk. | Mullings had no knowledge of risk. | Qualified immunity granted to Mullings. |
| Whether the state law claims should be dismissed after ruling on qualified immunity. | Ross's state claims survive if federal claims proceed. | With qualified immunity, state claims must be dismissed. | Dismissed state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996) (to protect inmates requires reasonable measures; not every injury constitutional liability)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (S. Ct. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of substantial risk and disregard of it)
- Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398 (2d Cir. 2005) (objective and subjective elements for deliberate indifference; substantial risk standard)
- Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2009) (pretrial detainees deliberate indifference standards addressed; Kingsley noted later developments)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (U.S. 2015) (distinguishing Eighth vs. Fourteenth Amendment standards for excessive force; relevance to clearly established rights)