Opinion ID: 4230179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Associate Warden Falk

Text: Mr. Wilson asserts that he interacted with Ms. Falk exactly once—during or just after his orientation to Limon. In particular, Mr. Wilson stated in his deposition that: When I learned [Ms. Falk] was the warden, I specifically talked to her. That’s why I remember her specifically. That’s the only time I ever seen her, ever met her, ever known anything to do with her. But I went up to her after the meeting and I showed her my paper, let her know about the Surenos problems, and she told—I remember what she looked like and everything. . . . ... 8 She said basically to talk to my lieutenant wherever I go; my case manager, inform them, let them know. That’s what she said—she gave me some good advice but that’s all she did. Aplt. App’x 80, 86. Ms. Falk, for her part, states that she was an associate warden at the time Mr. Wilson arrived at Limon and did not become warden at that facility until August 2012. She also testified that she does not recall ever meeting Mr. Wilson and that she was not present at any orientation sessions for new arrivals. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Wilson and assuming this meeting did in fact occur, Mr. Wilson cannot show that Ms. Falk acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. Mr. Wilson concedes that he had just a single encounter with Ms. Falk and that she gave him “good advice,” which Mr. Wilson in fact followed. Id. at 87. Thus, on Mr. Wilson’s own account of what Ms. Falk knew and the actions she took, Ms. Falk responded reasonably to the risk that the Surenos posed to his wellbeing. Indeed, Mr. Wilson has never argued that Ms. Falk’s response was unreasonable. The district court, therefore, correctly held that Ms. Falk was entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Mr. Wilson’s § 1983 claim. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845 (“[P]rison officials who act reasonably cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.”).