NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0564n.06 No. 08-4499 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

GEORGE HA MI L TON, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. WI L L I AM EL EBY , et al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR TH E SO U T H E RND I ST RI CT OF O H IO

B e fo re : CLAY , CO OK , a nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KETH L E D G E , Ci r c u it Ju d g e . D e f e n d an t Ja c k B e n d o lp h

— an O h io D e p artm e n t of Rehabilitation and Correc tion (ODRC) officia l—appea ls the distr i ct cour t’s denial of qua lified immun ity on Pla int if f G e or g e Ha

mil ton ’s c ivi l- ri g hts a c tio n a g a ins t hi m. We a ff ir m. I. Th e fo llo wi ngfa c ts a

re un dis pu te d f

or the purp os e s o f t

his a pp e a l. Ha

mil ton wa s a

n inmate at Ohio’s Ross Correc tional I nstitut ion (RCI ) in Novembe r 2003, when he re ceive d the following letter: We knew y ou been ba ck ther e for a while It’s just a matter of time be fore we g et y ou. Yo u s l i p t h re w o ur hands be fore , Porky But it’s a small wor ld isn’t it? You ar e a wa lki ngg ho st, wi ll s e e y ou so on won ’t

be lon g . St op a sk ingQu e sti on s a bo ut u s. They tell us y ou’re a dea d man walking . Your fr iend for life

.No. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-2- The letter bore two lig htening bolts, emblematic of the Aryan B rotherhood pr ison ga ng . Hamilton

re po rt e d th e le tte r t o RC I st aff, ass ertingthat th e Ar y an B ro the rh oo d h a d ta

ke n o ut a hit on him be c a us e do c ume nt s fro m hi s c e ll h a d b e e n u se d to pr os e c ute Da ry l B oc oo k—

wh o, a lon g wi th Dar y l’s brother, J esse, is a member of the Aryan B rotherhood—f or the murde r of Ha

milton’s friend, Sa m H uf fm an. Ha

mil ton tol d RC Ithat h e fi rst le arn e d o f t he hit fr om h is e x-g ir lf

ri e nd , Pa ula Cremea ns, who is the Bo co o k s’ sister. Hamilton ex presse d his belief that Da ryl Boc ook had pu bli c iz ed th e hi t to t

he e nti re Ar

y an B ro the rh oo d, and

c la ime d th a t it s me mbe rs ha d p re vio us ly “broke [hi s] face” and re peate dly attempted to stab him at a diff ere nt prison. Th e RCI sta ff the n in iti a te d a

re fe rr a l f or Pr otective Contr ol ( PC) , w hic h w ou ld s e pa rate Hamilton f

rom the g ener al prison population f or his ow n safe ty
. See Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-9- 14. The PC scr eening committee (the “Committ ee” ) verifie d that Dar y l B ocook h ad m u rd ere d Hu ff man, and that Cr e me ans a pp e are d on the B oc oo ks ’ and Ha mil ton ’s a pp ro ve d- vis ito r l ist s, a s a sister an d fr i end (later “ g irlfriend” ), re spectively . The Committee also lear ned that Hamilton had been g rante d “insti t u t i o n al s eparation” fr om the Boc ooks, which mea nt that he could not be incar cer ated in the sa

me fa cility

as either Dar

y l or J esse. Althoug h the Commit tee sa id it believed that Hamilton had au t h o re d t he letter himself, it recommende d placingHamilton in PC . RCI ’s

war den conc urre d, and sent his re commend at i on, along with the letter a nd the Commit tee’ s inv e sti g a tio n r e po rt , to OD RC’ s B ur e a u of Cl ass ific a tio n, wh ic h in tur n w ou ld m a ke the ult imate decision. Th e B ur e a

u’ s c hie f, De fe nd ant Wi lli a m Ele by , did not re vie w Hamil ton ’s re qu e st, be c a us e he had de leg ated PC-place men t authorit y to his assistant, Bendolph, and a nother staf

f member

.No. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-3- Be ndolph questioned the risk that Hamilton faced , beca use Hamilton had kept Cremeans—the Boc ooks’ sister—on his v i s i t o r l i s t , and bec ause some of the RCIinvestigative staff thoug ht that Hamilton h ad s en t h i m self the thre ateningletter. B endolph re asoned that any problems wer e l o c a l i z e d t o R C I, an d

t h a tm o v i n g H a m i l t o nt o an o t h e r p r i s o nw o u l d

r e s o l v e t h e m . A c c o r d i n g l y, Be ndolph denied PC placeme nt and instead approved Ha milton’s transfer to the g ener al population of a diff ere nt prison, the Warren Corr ectional Institut ion (WCI ). Hamilton was transf

err ed to WCI on Dec ember 17, 2003. There he met Sain, an inmate who turn e d o u t to b e a “ le p r e c h a u n , ” w h ic h is a me mb e r o f th e A r y an B r o th e r

h o o d w it h o u t tattoos or other identify

ing ma rks. On Jul y

3, 2004, Hamilton acc epted some “ hooch”—ho m emade alcohol—fr om Sain, who then told Ha milton to g o into the y ard’ s rec reation she d. I nside, members of the Ar y an B ro the rh oo d atta c ke d a nd br uta lly a ssa ult e d H a mil ton . T he a mbu shle ft Ha mil ton wi th impaired sense s of smell, vision, hearing, an d taste, as we ll as mental-hea lth problems and he a da c he s. Ha m i l t o n broug ht this 42 U.S .C. § 1983 action ag ainst Eleby and B endolph, alleg ing the y fa ile d to pro te c t him fr om a sub sta nti a l r isk of se ri ou s h arm , in

vio latio n o f t

he Ei g hth Am e ndme nt. Both de fenda

nts moved for summary

judgme nt on the basis of qualified immuni ty . The district cour t g rante d the motion as to Eleby , but de nied it a s to B endolph, holding that a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t exi sted as to wh ether Be ndolph’s decision not to place Hamilton in PC rose to the leve l of a constitutional viol ation. This appea l followed. II.No. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-4- A. We review de novo the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s de nia l of

summa ry jud g me nt o n q

ua lif ie d- immun ity g rounds. H

a rriso n v . A sh , 539 F.3d 510, 516 ( 6th Cir. 2008). An interlocutory appea l from the de nia l of qu a lif ie d immunit

y pr e se nts on ly the le g a l que sti on wh e the r “the e vid e nc e [co ns ide re d] in the light most favor able to the party injured” shows a violation of a c lear ly established constitutional rig ht. Id . at 517. Qualified immunity

“prote cts g overnme nt officials ‘f rom liability for civil damag es insofar as their c onduct does not violate cle arly established statutory

or constitutional rig hts of which a

rea sonable pe rson would have known.’” Pearson v. Callahan , 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009) ( quoting Ha rlo w v . F

itz ge ra ld , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). It does not apply if the off

icial violated a constitutional right that wa s clea rly established at the time of the violation. Harrison , 539 F.3d at 51 7. Th is c ourt

ha s a lso e xami ne d w he ther “ wh a t th e of fi c ia l a lle g e dly

did wa s o bje c tiv e ly

unrea sonable in lig ht of the clea rly established constitutional rights.” W ill iam s v . M

e hra , 186 F.3d 685, 691 (6th Cir. 1999) ( en banc ). The rig ht at issue here is the Eighth Ame ndment’s prohibition of crue l and unusual punis hme nt, wh ic h a

mon g oth e r t

hin g s r e quire s p ri so n o ff

ic ia ls t o “ ‘t a ke re a so na

ble me a sure s to g uara ntee the sa fety

of the inmates[.]’” Farmer v. B r ennan , 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Hudson v. Palme r , 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)) . Although Farmer clea rly established that a pr ison officia l’s failure to preve nt harm to an inmate c an i m p l i ca t e t he Eig hth Amendment, not “eve ry injury suffe red by one prisoner at t he hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liabilit y for prison officia ls responsible for the victim’s safety .” Id . at 83 4. Ra the r, to mainta in a n E ig hthNo. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-5- Am e ndme nt c la im b ased on a fa ilure to p re ve nt h arm , H a mil ton “ mus t sh owthat he [wa s] incar cer ated unde r conditions posing a substantia l ris k

o f s e r io u s h a r m” ( th e “objec tive component”) , and that B endolph ac ted with “deliber ate indiffe renc e” to that r is k (t he “subje ctive compone nt”). Id . “ De lib e rate i nd if

fe re nc e ” is a

state of min d akin

to c ri min a l r e c kle ssn e ss: “ ‘t he of fi c ia l mu st both be awa

re of the fac ts f

rom which the infere nce could be draw n that a substantial risk of ser ious harm e x ists, and he must al s o d ra w t h e inferenc e.’” Cur ry v . S c ott , 249 F.3d 493, 506 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837). B. We first consider whether Hamilton was incarce rate d under conditions posing a substantial risk of ser ious harm. Af t er d o cu m ents from his ce ll were used to prosec ute Dar y l Boc ook—an Ary an Br otherhood member—f or murder, Hamilton r ece ived a death threat be aring t h e A ry an Br othe r h o o d ’ s s y mb o l. H e f

u rth e r le ar n e d , f ir s t- h an d f r o m t h e B o c o o k s ’ s is te r , th a t t h e A ry an Br otherhood ha d taken out a hit on him. Hamilton also maintains that Ary an B rotherhood me mbers ha d p re vio us ly

“ br ok e [his ] fa c e ” and a tte mpt e d to sta b h im at a dif fe re nt p ri so n. Th is r e c or d p e rm its a findingthat Hamilton fac ed a substantial r isk of serious harm in RCI ’s gene ral population, t here by

me e tin g the ob

je c tiv e c omp on e nt o f h is c la im. We turn next to the subjective c o m p o n en t , namely , whether Be ndolph was both awa

re of fac ts from which he could have inferr ed that Hamilton faced a substantial r isk of serious har m, and actua lly drewthat infere nce. See F armer , 511 U.S. at 837. Be ndolph was undisputedl y aw are of the threatening letter, the Committee’s finding s, and t he recommendations of bot h the Commit tee and the war den that Hamilton be place d in PC. Moreove r—and m o s t importantly —Be ndolphNo. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-6- te sti fi e d h e kn e w that th e Ar y an Br oth e rh oo d exist s thr ou g ho ut the Oh io p ri so n s y ste m, a nd tha t th e ir “hits” could follow a

prisoner f rom one prison to anothe r. A jury could cer tainly find, there fore , that Be ndolph was aw are of facts from whic h he could have infe rre d that Hamilton fac ed a substantial ri sk of se ri ou s h a

rm . A nd it w a s und isp ute d at or a l argume nt i n th is c a se tha t th e re c or d w ou ld permit (thoug h not compel) a jury to find that Be ndolph a ctually did draw tha

t infere nce. Se e als o Cur ry , 249 F.3d at 506 (“a

fac tfinder may

infer a ctu al k n o wl ed g e [that the plaintiff fac ed a substan t i al ri sk] t hroug h circ umstantial evidence , or ‘may conclude a prison off

icial knew of

a substantial risk f

rom the very fac t that the risk was obvious’” ) (quoting Farmer , 511 U.S. at 842). But e ven if B endolph dre w the infe renc e that Ham i l t o n fac ed a substantial r isk of serious h ar m, h o w e ver, he “may

b e f o u n d f r e e f r o m l ia b il it y if [h e ] r e s p o n d e d

r e a s o n a b ly to th e r is k [. ]” Farmer , 511 U.S. at 844. Be ndolph a rg ues that, for sever al rea sons, his decision to t ra nsfer Hamilton to W CI ’s g ener al population was a rea s o n able r esponse to the r isk that Hamilton face d. First, B endolph say s that the Commit tee’ s bel i ef that Hamilton probably wrote the death thre at himself, and the f

act that Ha

milton kept C reme ans on hi s approve d-visitor list despit e his avowe d fea r of he r brother s, weig hed ag ains t co n cl u d i n gthat Hamilton fac ed a substantial r isk of serious harm. That may

well be true , but those fa cts do not weig h enough to forec lose that conc lusion. Second, takingthe death threat on its face , Be ndolph maintains that the statement, “[w]e knew y ou been ba c k

the re aw h i l e ” s u

p p o rt s h i s c o n c l u s i o nt h a tH a m i l t o n ’ s p r o b l e m w a s l o c a l i z e d t o R C I. Appellants’ B r. at 9 (e mphasis in origina l). But “ back the re” could mean pr ison in g ener al as much

a s a sp e c if ic fa c ili ty , a

nd B e nd olph ack

no wl e dg e d th a t th e Ar

y an B ro the rh oo d c an c on ve y a “ hit ” fr om on e pr iso n to ano the r. Th a t a c kn ow le dg me nt l ike wi se un de rm ine s B e nd olp h’ s th ir d p oin t,No. 08-4499

Hamilton v. Eleby

-7- which is that his actions wer e re asonable beca use he tra nsfer red H amilton to a facility wher e he “ had no instit utional separations from any inmate.” Id . Four

th, Be ndolph argues that WCI “housed one of the two PC units i n the ODRC sy stem, which would ser ve as a reminder to H amilton that if the transfe r di d not solve the problem

. . . he could a lway s rene w the PC request.” Id

. But that argument beg s the question whether Hamilton sh o uld have e ven neede d t o r e n e w t h e r e qu e s t
. A n d f i n a l l y, Be ndolph argues that the re asonable ness of his re sponse is demonstrated by the fac t that Hamilton was not as s aulted for

six months after his tra

nsfer to WC I . That too might we igh in B endolph’s favor in the j ury ’s determination of reasonable ness; but the facts of t his case themselves sug g est that prison hits sometim es take time to car ry out. The six -month delay , there fore , is not enoug h to take

awa y from the jury

the question whethe r B endolph’s re sponse was r easona ble. The district cour

t’s denial of qua lified immunit y is affirme d.