Wilson v. Falk, 877 F.3d 1204

Terrance D. Wilson, a Colorado state prisoner and former Crips affiliate, reported repeated threats and assaults by Sureno gang members across multiple facilities before and after transfer to Limon Correctional Facility.
On arrival at Limon (April 2012) Wilson says he told the associate warden (Falk) at orientation about threats; she allegedly advised him to speak with a lieutenant and his case manager.
Wilson contends he then told Lieutenant Fox and Sergeant Frank about threats; he and a fellow inmate (Drake) say Fox/Frank moved the Sureno leader but Wilson was still later assigned to Unit 3 where Surenos were housed.
Wilson alleges he met his case manager, Phillip, twice in April and requested transfer/protection; he says Phillip refused to discuss protection and thereafter received and submitted multiple "kites" reporting attacks and threats.
Despite warnings and prior assaults, on July 2, 2012 Wilson was stabbed 11 times by inmate Manuel Diaz; Wilson sued Falk, Fox, Frank, and Phillip under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect.
The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants; the Tenth Circuit affirmed as to Falk (reasonable response) but reversed as to Fox, Frank, and Phillip (genuine disputes on deliberate indifference), and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Associate Warden Falk was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm	Wilson: Falk learned of threats at orientation and gave only cursory advice, failing to ensure protection	Falk: Denies recollection; even if she spoke to Wilson she gave reasonable advice and no further duty	Held: Falk entitled to summary judgment — her single interaction and advice were reasonable
Whether Lt. Fox and Sgt. Frank were deliberately indifferent	Wilson: He told them the Surenos were after him and they knew of threats; their actions were insufficient	Fox/Frank: Deny recollection; argue any steps taken were reasonable or insufficiently shown	Held: Reversed as to Fox/Frank — evidence (Wilson/Drake) creates a genuine dispute that they were subjectively aware of a serious risk
Whether Case Manager Phillip was deliberately indifferent	Wilson: Multiple kites and meetings put Phillip on notice; Phillip refused to address protection and did nothing despite repeated attacks	Phillip: Denies recollection of kites/meetings and says he would have logged such reports; chronlog lacks entries	Held: Reversed as to Phillip — evidence creates genuine dispute that Phillip knew of and recklessly disregarded a substantial risk

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness)
Keith v. Koerner, 843 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment review and burden-shifting for qualified immunity)
Clark v. Edmunds, 513 F.3d 1219 (procedural allocation of burdens on qualified immunity at summary judgment)
The Estate of Lockett v. Fallin, 841 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir. 2016) (permissible order of qualified immunity analysis)
Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (prisoners have clearly established right to protection from substantial risk of assault)
Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341 (10th Cir. 1997) (qualified immunity should not be an insurmountable barrier to vindicating constitutional rights)
Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 1999) (appellate court decline to consider alternative affirmance bases not developed below)