Opinion ID: 4230179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Case Manager Phillip

Text: The evidence regarding Mr. Phillip’s knowledge and inaction is more substantial. Mr. Phillip was Mr. Wilson’s case manager at Limon from approximately April 17, 2012 11 to July 17, 2012. As a case manager, Mr. Phillip managed a caseload of approximately 90 to 100 offenders; he was responsible for assisting with parole plans, community referrals, job assignments, and treatment programs. Mr. Wilson asserts that he met with Mr. Phillip on April 17, 2012 and again on April 19, 2012, eight and ten days after he arrived at Limon. According to Mr. Wilson’s sworn affidavit, on both occasions he informed Mr. Phillip “of the Sureno issue” and requested a transfer to another facility. Aplt. App’x at 136. After those two meetings, Mr. Wilson states that Mr. Phillip “refused to discuss the issue of protection of me from the Surenos.” Id. In response, Mr. Wilson complained to another prison official, Mr. Chase, who advised Mr. Wilson to file kites, which Mr. Wilson says he did over and again in the ensuing weeks. Another inmate, Nathan Nulle, submitted a declaration stating that he too “turned in a stack of kites to . . . Case Manager Phillips [sic] informing them of the events occurring with Mr. Wilson.” Id. at 139. Mr. Nulle said it was “immediately clear” upon Mr. Wilson’s arrival at Limon that there was tension with the Sureno gang members. Id. Mr. Nulle further asserts that he witnessed gang intimidation tactics and was told “that there was a real threat to Mr. Wilson’s life.” Id. In his own sworn affidavit, Mr. Phillip asserts that he has “no recollection of Wilson ever speaking to me verbally or submitting a kite or grievance to inform me that he had any custody issues at [Limon] or any other CDOC facility, had a bounty on his head from the Surenos gang, or had been threatened or assaulted by other inmates while he was housed at [Limon].” Id. at 96. Had Mr. Wilson approached him with any of that information or submitted a kite or grievance regarding the same, Mr. Phillip says that he 12 would have documented it in Mr. Wilson’s chronlog report. Mr. Wilson’s chronlog report bears no indication that Mr. Wilson or Mr. Nulle ever notified Mr. Phillip of the threat posed by the Surenos. The chronlog confirms that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Phillip met on April 17 and discussed matters unrelated to the Surenos or any risks to Mr. Wilson’s health and safety. The chronlog bears no indication of an April 19 meeting, as Mr. Wilson alleges, but it does show that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Phillip met on at least five other occasions, each time for purposes other than discussing the Surenos or Mr. Wilson’s protection. In his deposition testimony, Mr. Phillip acknowledged that he generally does not keep kites or list them in an inmate’s chronlog. He could not definitively say whether he received any kites at all from Mr. Wilson, and he did not remember Mr. Nulle. The district court concluded that Mr. Phillip is entitled to qualified immunity because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Wilson, does not support a finding that Mr. Phillip knew that a substantial risk of serious harm existed and that Mr. Phillip did, in fact, draw that conclusion. We respectfully disagree. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Nulle have both declared that they submitted multiple kites to Mr. Phillip informing him of at least some of the events precipitating Mr. Wilson’s stabbing. Mr. Wilson specifically claims that he twice told Mr. Phillip about the Surenos and twice requested a transfer to another facility. After his second request, Mr. Phillip allegedly “refused to discuss the issue of protection” any further. Id. at 136. In the following weeks, Mr. Wilson alleges that he was attacked by Surenos affiliates on five separate occasions—on June 9, by Mr. Diaz, with a long rusty nail, on June 21, by Mr. Green with at least fifteen 13 Picas and Surenos in tow, again on June 21, by two Surenos in Mr. Wilson’s cell, and finally on June 22 and 23, each time by a single Sureno. Mr. Wilson claims that “[k]ites regarding all the foregoing attacks were written by me and put in the kite box by friends of mine” and that Mr. Phillip was “told of all these attacks by me.” Id. at 137. Mr. Wilson further claims that “[i]n the kites I stated that the person who attacked me on June 9, had knives.” Id. Mr. Wilson also claims that he asked Mr. Phillip “not to let me be placed in Unit 3,” and that he was assigned there despite the availability of beds in Units 1 and 5. Id. The foregoing evidence, if believed, would suffice to show that Mr. Phillip violated Mr. Wilson’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997) (“While qualified immunity was meant to protect officials performing discretionary duties, it should not present an insurmountable obstacle to plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights.”). And viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Wilson, as we must, we find there exists a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Mr. Phillip was subjectively aware of the risk to Mr. Wilson’s health and safety and whether he recklessly disregarded that risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Finally, we also note that, unlike Mr. Phillip’s co-defendants discussed supra, were we to assume that Mr. Phillip was aware of the risk, there is no evidence in the record through which we could conclude that Mr. Phillip did anything at all to reasonably abate the risk of which he was informed. On this record, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Phillip is entitled to qualified immunity. Because genuine issues of material fact exist as to 14 whether Mr. Phillip was subjectively aware of and disregarded a substantial risk to Mr. Wilson’s health and safety, summary judgment was improper.