Opinion ID: 146927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Against Officer Herbling

Text: The District Court interpreted Matthews’ claims against Herbling as a failure to protect claim and a failure to intervene claim. To state an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim, Matthews must allege that he faced “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). He must also allege that Herbling was deliberately indifferent to that risk. Id. at 838. We agree that Matthews has not met this standard. His alleged injuries do not rise to the level of “serious harm,” and he has not alleged a “pervasive risk of harm” from this single incident. See Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143, 147 (3d Cir. 1985). Moreover, Matthews’ account of the alleged events indicates that Herbling was surprised by Villella’s actions, and therefore lacked the knowledge to have acted with deliberate indifference. The District Court also properly dismissed Matthews’ failure to intervene claim. An officer is liable for failing to protect an inmate from another officer’s use of excessive 5 force “if there is a realistic and reasonable opportunity to intervene.” Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 650-51 (3d Cir. 2002). As the District Court reasoned, even assuming Villella used excessive force, it does not appear that Herbling could have had any opportunity to intervene in Villella’s sudden use of force.