Opinion ID: 1406027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Farid's Medical Claims

Text: Farid has also alleged that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights through their alleged deliberate indifference to his medical conditionprimarily his Hepatitis C, for which he received only sporadic treatment. An inmate attempting to show deliberate indifference must demonstrate that the defendants act[ed] or fail[ed] to act while actually aware of a substantial risk that serious inmate harm w[ould] result. Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 280 (2d Cir.2006). Having carefully and independently reviewed the record, we agree with the District Court that Farid has not shown that Defendants acted with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farid II, 2006 WL 59517, at . At best, Farid has produced evidence tending to show that Defendants may have been negligent. But negligence is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim. The parties also dispute whether Defendants were personally involved in Farid's medical treatment or lack thereof. It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983. Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 484 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1994)). Because we affirm the District Court's determination that Farid has not shown deliberate indifference, we need not reach the separate question of whether Defendants were personally involved in his treatment. For similar reasons, we do not consider whether Farid's medical condition would be grave enough to support an 8th Amendment claim if his treatment had been shown to be deliberately indifferent. For the reasons above, we AFFIRM the District Court in every particular except one. We agree with the District Court that Farid's rights were violated by the application of unconstitutionally vague prison regulations, but we do not agree that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for that violation. We therefore VACATE that portion of the District Court's decision in Farid III, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.