The court s analysis led it to conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the prisoner s Bivens claim. Finally, the court discussed Eighth Amendment failure to protect jurisprudence, which essentially requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement, and to take reasonable measures to guarantee prisoner safety. As with all Eighth Amendment claims, there is both an objective and subjective component. In this case, however, the prisoner s injury was so obviously serious that the court addressed only subjective element. The court reasoned that the prisoner s Bivens claim turned on whether prison officials were subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm, and whether they disregarded the risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.
Ordinary negligence is insufficient.
Prison officials must be deliberately indifferent, which is akin to criminal negligence. The court concluded that the facts did not rise to a level of constitutional significance, simply because an industrial accident occurred within a prison. Summary judgment for the prison officials was affirmed. Website maintained by Matthew Esget.