Scott v. Miami Dade County
657 F. App'x 877
11th Cir.2016Background
- Pretrial detainee Pleandro Scott was previously assaulted by a prison gang and repeatedly threatened thereafter; he requested to be kept separate from other inmates.
- Scott filed multiple grievances and informed Corporal Gomez and Lieutenant Weston (and Sergeant Jefferson) that he feared for his safety and asked to be kept separate at all times.
- Defendants allegedly assured Scott they would keep him separate, but did not ensure the instruction appeared on his jail card or otherwise prevent contact with threatening inmates.
- On May 15, 2013, Scott was placed in a courthouse holding cell with inmate Anterell Dean (whom he had identified as a threat) and was assaulted by Dean.
- Scott sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to his safety; Gomez and Weston moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Scott plausibly alleged a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim | Scott alleged a known, substantial risk from gang members, repeated warnings, and defendants’ inaction leading to assault | Defendants argued facts insufficient (relying on Brooks) and that protective custody/single cell eliminated substantial risk | Court held Scott plausibly alleged substantial risk, subjective awareness, and unreasonable response — claim survives dismissal |
| Whether defendants were subjectively aware of the risk | Scott informed Gomez and Weston verbally and via grievances that Dean and gang members threatened him | Defendants contended they lacked actual knowledge or adequately addressed the risk | Court held allegations suffice to show subjective awareness given repeated warnings and prior attack |
| Whether defendants’ response was objectively reasonable | Scott contended defendants merely promised protection but failed to record or implement measures (e.g., jail-card notation) | Defendants argued they may have taken steps or that no encounters occurred after March | Court held that at pleading stage, allegations that defendants did little or nothing make their response plausibly unreasonable |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Scott argued Farmer and circuit precedent clearly established duty to protect from inmate-on-inmate violence | Defendants argued no clearly established law applied or that Brooks limited liability | Court held the right was clearly established under Farmer and Eleventh Circuit precedent; qualified immunity denied at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials must protect inmates from known substantial risks of inmate-on-inmate violence)
- Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2015) (complaint failed to plausibly allege substantial risk prior to a riot)
- Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090 (11th Cir. 2014) (evidence of inmate warnings can show defendants’ subjective awareness)
- Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir. 1995) (elements of deliberate indifference and examples of inmate-on-inmate violence creating substantial risk)
- Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, Ga., 400 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing inmate-on-inmate violence as substantial harm)
- Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (it was clearly established that doing nothing in the face of known prison conditions posing serious harm is unreasonable)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference standard applies)
- Rodriguez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 508 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2007) (objectively unreasonable response defined as knowingly or recklessly declining known means to reduce harm)
- LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993) (officials liable for disregarding available alternative measures to reduce risk)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law need not be a case with identical facts)