Pierson v. Hartley.

U.S. Appeals Court

CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

FAILURE TO PROTECT

Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2004). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials for failing to protect him from an assault by another inmate. Following a jury verdict in favor of the inmate, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the officials. The inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held that evidence was sufficient to create a fact issue for the jury as to whether officials disregarded risk to the inmate by assigning the assailant to a low-security dorm and allowing him to remain there following his weapons conviction in a prison disciplinary system. According to the court, the officials probably reviewed a letter from a county sheriff warning of the assailant's aberrant behavior and calling him an escape and assault risk, and the officials were likely aware of the assailant's disciplinary conviction of weapon possession. The court also found that the officials knew that the assailant had neither one year in the general prison population nor ten years without any serious convictions of conduct violations, as required by prison policy for placement in a low-security level dorm. (Indiana State Prison)