Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi v. Lt. Field
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00262-GEC-PMS. [999544316]. [13-7606]
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 1 of 44
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7606
ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LT. FIELDS; SGT. KING; CAPT. GALLIHAR; DAVID BELLAMY; GLEN
BOYD; JANE DOE; THOMAS HALL,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Corrections; TIMOTHY
SUMPTER; BRANDON WOODWARD; CLARENCE SHUPE; DENNIS SLUSS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:11−cv−00262−GEC−PMS)
Argued:
October 28, 2014
Decided:
March 12, 2015
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the
majority opinion, in which Judge Motz joined. Judge Motz wrote
a separate concurring opinion.
Judge Shedd wrote a separate
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 2 of 44
ARGUED: Stephen William Kiehl, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Trevor Stephen Cox, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Daniel Suleiman, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Mark R. Herring, Attorney
General of Virginia, Cynthia E. Hudson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General, Stuart A. Raphael, Solicitor General of Virginia, Linda
L. Bryant, Deputy Attorney General, Richard C. Vorhis, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Kate E. Dwyre, Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
2
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 3 of 44
WYNN, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff
Adib
Eddie
Ramez
Makdessi
lodged
numerous
complaints about repeated physical and sexual abuse he suffered
while
imprisoned
facilities.
in
The
court
Virginia
Department
below
it
found
of
Corrections
“clear”
that
prison
officials “should have been more diligent in handling Makdessi’s
claims
of
sexual
assault.”
J.A.
975.
Nevertheless,
the
magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted,
the view that because the prison officials named as defendants
in Makdessi’s suit did not actually know of the substantial risk
of harm Makdessi faced, his claims must fail.
The Supreme Court has stated, however, that the subjective
“actual knowledge” standard required to find prison officials
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious injury
may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
not
simply
liability.
bury
their
heads
in
the
Prison officials may
sand
and
thereby
skirt
Rather, they may be held accountable when a risk is
so obvious that it had to have been known.
Because we do not
believe that the court below appreciated this nuance, we vacate
the dismissal of Makdessi’s claims against Defendants Fields,
King, and Gallihar.
3
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 4 of 44
I.
Makdessi does not dispute the facts found as a result of
the
bench
trial
below.
Makdessi
is
a
five-foot-four-inch,
forty-nine-year-old man with physical and mental ailments that
make him “vulnerable to harassment and attacks” in prison.
956.
J.A.
Thus, Makdessi has been forced to pay for protection from
such abuse.
Makdessi
testified
that
Defendant
Christopher
King,
a
prison official at Wallens Ridge State Prison, where Makdessi
was incarcerated, repeatedly called him names including “sand
nigger” and “bitch.”
as
2007,
he
Id.
Makdessi testified that as far back
complained
to
the
Assistant
Warden
about
mistreatment by his cellmate, that King accused him of being a
“snitch,”
and
that
no
one
ever
investigated
and
nothing
was
done.
In 2010, Makdessi sent another complaint to the Assistant
Warden, stating that King hated him, refused to listen to him,
and
retaliated
against
him
when
he
complained.
Makdessi
testified that this complaint, too, garnered no response.
In August 2010, Makdessi was moved to a cell with a new
cellmate,
Michael
Smith,
who
was
an
aggressive
gang
member.
“Although Makdessi went to the floor correctional officer to
request that he be placed in a different cell or protective
custody, and the officer said he would advise Sgt. King, he
4
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 5 of 44
remained in the same cell with Smith.”
testified
that
he
wrote
a
complaint
J.A. 957.
about
Makdessi also
being
housed
with
Smith, which Smith destroyed.
Per prison operating policy, offender enemies are to be
identified
“shall
and
take
separated.
appropriate
Under
the
measures
to
policy,
prison
officials
those
offenders
protect
involved,” and an enemy is defined as an offender who “pose[s] a
significant threat to the life of another offender.”
Makdessi
testified
that
he
was
physically
J.A. 962.
and
sexually
assaulted by Smith and his Gangster Disciple associates numerous
times.
On one such occasion, December 8, 2010, Smith beat and
raped Makdessi, Makdessi “tried to report this incident to Sgt.
King, but King told him to ‘get the hell away’ from him, and no
investigation
December
8
occurred.”
attack,
J.A.
Makdessi
957.
wrote
a
Within
letter
a
to
day
the
of
the
Assistant
Warden about it but received no response.
Makdessi
Investigation
also
on
reached
December
out
20,
to
2010,
the
Federal
stating
that
Bureau
he
of
feared
prison staff and prison gang members had teamed up to end his
life.
In the letter to the FBI, Makdessi also underscored that
despite the multiple attacks and his telling Defendant Tracy
Fields and others that he was in danger and needed to be placed
in protective custody, he remained unprotected in the cell with
Smith.
5
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 6 of 44
Makdessi testified that on December 20, 2010, he met with
Defendant Fields regarding an informal complaint he had filed.
During
that
meeting,
Makdessi
told
Defendant
Fields
that
he
feared for his life due to his cellmate Smith, a gang leader,
and that he wanted to be placed in protective custody.
Makdessi
testified that Defendant Fields said he would advise Defendant
King.
The
following
Makdessi.
letter
day,
December
21,
2010,
Smith
attacked
According to Makdessi, Smith confronted him with the
Makdessi
had
sent
to
the
Assistant
Warden
about
the
December 8 attack and told him that “[b]efore the day is over,
we’re going to kill you.”
J.A. 959.
Smith punched and beat
Makdessi, called him a “snitch,” flushed the letter down the
toilet, and then raped Makdessi.
Id.
Makdessi testified that
he screamed loudly, yelled for help, and tried—but failed—to
push the emergency button in his room.
“Makdessi testified that
his screams could have been heard.”
Id.
that
Smith
ejaculated
onto
the
bed,
Makdessi testified
cleaned
himself
up,
and
ordered Makdessi to clean himself.
The prison was on “restricted movement” that day, meaning
that
inmates
had
to
eat
lunch
in
their
cells.
J.A.
959.
Nevertheless, inmates were allowed out, four cells at a time, to
retrieve lunch trays.
Makdessi testified that Smith refused to
let him leave the cell when the doors opened.
6
And when they
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 7 of 44
shut, Smith forced Makdessi to perform oral sex, during which
Makdessi
bit
Smith.
Smith
again
beat
Makdessi.
Makdessi
testified that Smith’s gang associates came by the cell, and
prison guards performed their rounds, but no one intervened.
Makdessi
testified
that
Smith
packed
his
television
and
other personal items in a laundry bag for a gang associate to
retrieve.
When
the
cell
door
opened,
while
Smith
Makdessi’s things outside the cell, Makdessi escaped.
placed
Smith and
a gang associate chased and caught him, and Smith again began
punching Makdessi.
A warning shot was fired, Smith and his gang
associates hit the floor, but Makdessi continued to run away.
Makdessi was taken to medical, where he required stitches
to his face and an x-ray of his ribs.
Blood was also found in
Makdessi’s anorectal sample and inside the back of Makdessi’s
underpants.
Despite
Makdessi’s
report
that
Smith
into the bed sheets, those were never analyzed.
ejaculated
Neither was the
blood found under Makdessi’s fingernails.
After discharge from
the
days
hospital,
Makdessi
health infirmary.
spent
forty-seven
in
the
mental
Smith refused medical treatment after the
December 21 altercation and denied the rape allegation.
Makdessi testified that while he was in the mental health
infirmary, Defendant King came by and said “‘I told these guys
to go ahead and kill you’” and that “‘[y]ou need to stop filing
all these grievances because what happened to you is nothing
7
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 8 of 44
compared to what’s going to happen to you.’”
J.A. 961.
Soon
thereafter, Makdessi was transferred to another prison, where he
was placed in protective custody.
Defendants
contradicted
much
of
Makdessi’s
story.
Defendant King, for example, testified that he “never threatened
Makdessi.”
J.A. 969.
Defendant Fields testified that Makdessi
did not complain of problems with his cellmate on December 20,
2010, nor did Makdessi “indicate[] that he was in fear for his
life from anyone, that he was being sexually assaulted or that
he
feared
“Likewise,
being
Sgt.
sexually
King
assaulted
testified
he
by
was
anyone.”
never
made
J.A.
970.
aware
that
Makdessi feared for his life or that he feared being sexually
assaulted.”
J.A. 971.
Defendant Arvil Gallihar, whose duties
included being responsible for the overall operations of all the
prison buildings, testified that “Makdessi never informed him
that he feared for his life, and he never made any allegations
of being raped to him.”
Id.
And Defendants King and Gallihar
both denied having seen any grievances Makdessi made involving
sexual assault.
A half year later, in June 2011, Makdessi brought this suit
against
Eighth
various
Amendment
punishment.
prison
right
officials,
to
be
alleging
free
from
violations
cruel
and
of
his
unusual
After Makdessi amended his complaint and some named
defendants were dismissed, the case proceeded to trial before a
8
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
magistrate
Filed: 03/12/2015
judge.
The
Pg: 9 of 44
magistrate
judge
issued
a
report
and
recommendation finding that “Makdessi clearly suffered serious
physical
injuries”
and
that
“the
evidence
admitted
at
trial
undoubtedly shows that Makdessi filed numerous grievances and
complaints to various departments, and he wrote letters to the
Assistant Warden and the Director of the [Virginia Department of
Corrections], alleging that he had been sexually assaulted on
multiple occasions while incarcerated . . . . [I]t is clear to
the undersigned that the staff . . . should have been more
diligent in handling Makdessi’s claims of sexual assault.”
J.A.
964, 974-75.
Nevertheless,
the
magistrate
judge
found
that
“Makdessi
cannot show that defendants failed to protect him . . . in
violation
of
the
Eighth
Amendment”
and
recommended
district court enter judgment in Defendants’ favor.
76.
Makdessi
specifically
objected
magistrate judge’s determinations.
in
its
entirety
the
to
only
that
the
J.A. 975-
some
of
the
The district court adopted
magistrate
judge’s
report
and
recommendation, and Makdessi appealed.
II.
As an initial matter, the parties dispute what claims are
actually before us.
Makdessi contends that he has challenged
all claims dismissed per the magistrate judge’s recommendation
9
Appeal: 13-7606
and
Doc: 47
report
Filed: 03/12/2015
as
adopted
by
the
Pg: 10 of 44
district
court.
By
contrast,
Defendants argue that Makdessi failed to specifically object to
the
magistrate
judge’s
determination
that
Defendants
David
Bellamy, Glen Boyd, and Thomas Hall should be dismissed from the
case.
Accordingly,
per
Defendants,
Makdessi
waived
any
challenge to Bellamy’s, Boyd’s, and Hall’s dismissal.
“[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s
report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on
that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert
the
district
court
of
the
true
ground
for
the
objection.”
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).
This preservation requirement conserves “judicial resources and
makes certain that appellate courts have well-formed records to
review[.]”
2008).
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir.
Where an appellant has failed to preserve an issue, it
is deemed waived.
Id.
Here, the face of Makdessi’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s
recommendation
objections
repeatedly
and
report
mention
speaks
Defendants
for
King,
itself.
Fields,
The
and
Gallihar—each of those names appears in Makdessi’s objections
more than twenty times.
By contrast, Bellamy’s and Hall’s names
appear in the entirety of the objections only once each, and
Boyd’s name appears only twice.
from the objections.
10
In essence, they are absent
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Makdessi
contention
assault
tries
that
was
to
attach
another
loud
Pg: 11 of 44
significance
inmate’s
enough
that
warranted “examination.” 1
claim
a
guard
J.A. 980-81.
to
the
that
would
his
December
have
general
heard
21
it
But that contention,
included in a list of “undisputed facts that were absent from
the Report and Recommendation,” understandably did not put the
district
court
on
notice
that
Makdessi
challenged
the
recommended dismissal of Defendants Bellamy, Boyd, and Hall.
Accordingly, Makdessi failed to preserve any objection to
the dismissal of his claims against Defendants Bellamy, Boyd,
and Hall.
And Makdessi does not argue, e.g., for plain error
review.
We
therefore
do
not
review
the
waived
arguments
regarding the claims against Defendants Bellamy, Boyd, and Hall.
In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 292 (4th Cir. 2014) (refusing to
undertake plain error review in a civil case where appellant
failed to argue that the elements for plain error review had
been satisfied).
III.
Moving
stemming
on
from
to
a
what
bench
is
before
trial
under
1
us,
a
we
mixed
review
“judgments
standard:
factual
Makdessi’s claims against Bellamy, Boyd, and Hall related
specifically to the December 21, 2010 attack and not to earlier
events such as Makdessi’s prior complaints and grievances.
11
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 12 of 44
findings are reviewed for clear error, whereas conclusions of
law are reviewed de novo.”
Helton v. AT&T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343,
350 (4th Cir. 2013).
As the district court noted, “Makdessi complains that the
magistrate judge’s report [which the district court adopted in
its entirety] offers only two paragraphs about the applicable
legal standard and fails to discuss the nuanced legal theories
under which he believes he has proved defendants’ subjective
knowledge
through
circumstantial
evidence.”
J.A.
1001.
Makdessi contends that “[n]o direct evidence of an official’s
knowledge of the risk is necessary when a risk is obvious . . .
.”
Appellant’s Br. at 32.
Upon careful consideration of the
controlling law, we agree.
A.
“In its prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ the
Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may
not,
for
example,
prisoners.”
Amendment
use
excessive
physical
force
against
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).
also
imposes
duties
on
these
provide humane conditions of confinement.
officials,
who
The
must
Id.
“The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but
neither does it permit inhumane ones . . . .”
Farmer, 511 U.S.
at
“persons
832
(citation
omitted).
Prisons
house
[with]
demonstrated proclivit[ies] for antisocial criminal, and often
12
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 13 of 44
violent, conduct[,]” and at the same time “strip[s]” inmates “of
virtually every means of self-protection . . . .”
(citation omitted).
free
to
let
the
Id. at 833
“[T]he government and its officials are not
state
of
nature
take
its
course[,
and]
gratuitously allowing the beating or rape of one prisoner by
another
serves
no
legitimate
penological
objective.”
Id.
(citations and alteration omitted).
Prison
officials
are,
therefore,
obligated
reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety.
. . . prison officials have a duty . . .
to
take
“In particular,
to protect prisoners
from violence at the hands of other prisoners.”
Id. (quotation
marks omitted).
That being said, not every injury suffered by a prisoner at
the hands of another “translates into constitutional liability
for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety.”
at 834.
are
met.
Id.
Rather, liability attaches only when two requirements
First,
“a
prison
official’s
act
or
omission
must
result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.”
Id.
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
For a claim based on a failure to prevent harm, the plaintiff
must show that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm.”
lower
court’s
finding
here
that
13
Id.
No one disputes the
“Makdessi
clearly
suffered
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
serious
Filed: 03/12/2015
physical
injuries”
Pg: 14 of 44
and
thus
meets
this
first
prong.
J.A. 964.
Second,
the
prison
official
must
have
culpable state of mind” to be held liable.
834 (citations omitted).
a
“sufficiently
Farmer, 511 U.S. at
“In prison-conditions cases that state
of mind is one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or
safety . . . .”
Id.
It is this second deliberate indifference
prong that is at the heart of Makdessi’s appeal.
In
Farmer,
the
Supreme
Court
explained
that
“deliberate
indifference” entails “more than ordinary lack of due care for
the
prisoner’s
interests
or
safety,”
and
“more
than
mere
negligence,” but “less than acts or omissions [done] for the
very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will
result.”
Id. at 835 (citation omitted).
“The Court held that
deliberate indifference in this context lies somewhere between
negligence and purpose or knowledge: namely, recklessness of the
subjective type used in criminal law.”
Brice v. Virginia Beach
Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 1995).
“Nevertheless,
even
under
this
subjective
standard,
a
prison official cannot hide behind an excuse that he was unaware
of a risk, no matter how obvious.”
is
because
even
a
subjective
circumstantial evidence:
14
Brice, 58 F.3d at 105.
standard
may
be
proven
This
with
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 15 of 44
Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge
of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to
demonstration in the usual ways, including inference
from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may
conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial
risk from the very fact that a risk was obvious.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842 (citations omitted).
although
the
obviousness
of
a
“In other words,
particular
injury
is
not
conclusive of an official’s awareness of the injury, an injury
might be so obvious that the factfinder could conclude that the
guard did know of it because he could not have failed to know of
it.”
Brice, 58 F.3d at 105 (citations omitted).
A
proven
prison
through
official’s
subjective
circumstantial
actual
evidence
knowledge
showing,
for
can
be
example,
that the “substantial risk of inmate attacks was longstanding,
pervasive,
well-documented,
or
expressly
noted
by
prison
officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the
defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information
concerning
Farmer,
511
the
risk
U.S.
at
and
thus
‘must
842
(quotation
have
marks
known’
about
omitted).
evidence of actual knowledge is not required.
it.”
Direct
See id. at 842-
43.
Accordingly,
prison
officials
may
not
simply
heads in the sand and thereby skirt liability.
bury
their
“[E]ven a guard
able to prove that he was in fact oblivious to an obvious injury
of
sufficient
seriousness
may
not
15
escape
liability
if
it
is
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 16 of 44
shown, for example, that he merely refused to verify ‘underlying
facts
that
“‘declined
he
to
strongly
to
be
inferences
confirm
suspected
true,’”
of
risk
that
or
that
he
he
strongly
suspected to exist.’”
Brice, 58 F.3d at 105 (quoting Farmer,
511 U.S. at 843 n.8).
And “it does not matter whether the risk
comes from a single source or multiple sources, any more than it
matters whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for
reasons
personal
to
him
or
situation face such a risk.”
because
all
prisoners
in
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843.
his
Nor is
it dispositive that the prisoner did not give advance warning of
the risk or protest his exposure to the risk.
A
prison
indifference
“Prison
official
charge,
officials
remains
even
charged
in
free
the
with
to
face
Id. at 848-49.
rebut
of
deliberate
obvious
risk.
indifference
deliberate
an
the
might
show, for example, that they did not know of the underlying
facts indicating a sufficiently substantial danger and that they
were
therefore
unaware
of
a
danger,
or
that
they
knew
the
underlying facts but believed (albeit unsoundly) that the risk
to which the facts gave rise was insubstantial or nonexistent.”
Id. at 844.
But absent successful rebuttal, they may be held
liable for obvious risks they must have known.
Id. at 842.
B.
We find a close reading of Farmer illuminating for how to
apply the deliberate indifference standard both generally and
16
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
specifically to Makdessi’s case.
Pg: 17 of 44
In Farmer, the plaintiff was a
young transsexual serving a twenty-year sentence for credit card
fraud.
511 U.S. at 829.
Although a biological male, Farmer had
undergone some sex change treatments, including silicone breast
implants
and
unsuccessful
testical-removal
surgery.
Id.
Despite a feminine appearance, Farmer was incarcerated in male
prisons.
For
disciplinary
reasons,
prison
officials
transferred
Farmer to a higher-security facility, where Farmer was housed in
the general population.
Id. at 830.
Farmer voiced no objection
about
placement.
But
the
transfer
or
within
arrival, Farmer was beaten and raped by a cellmate.
two
weeks
of
Id.
Farmer sued, alleging that the transfer of a transsexual
with feminine characteristics to a high-security prison with a
history of inmate assaults amounted to deliberate indifference
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Id. at 830-31.
The
district court ruled in favor of the prison officials, holding
that there could be no constitutional violation in the absence
of actual knowledge of a potential danger.
district
court
focused
on
Farmer’s
In so ruling, the
failure
to
transfer or alert prison officials to any danger.
32.
protest
the
Id. at 831-
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court granted
certiorari and unanimously reversed.
17
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
After
Filed: 03/12/2015
laying
out
Pg: 18 of 44
Eighth
Amendment
law
and
defining
deliberate indifference, the Supreme Court explained that the
lower courts had placed undue weight on the fact that Farmer had
not complained about the transfer to the general population at
the
higher-security
notice
is
not
prison.
“[T]he
dispositive”
if
it
failure
could
to
be
give
shown
advance
that
the
plaintiff’s condition and appearance, coupled with the knowledge
of violent assaults in the prison, made it reasonable to believe
that
the
defendants
were
aware
of
a
serious
plaintiff but took no protective action.
risk
to
the
Id. at 848-49.
case, therefore, was remanded for reconsideration.
The
Id. at 849.
In this case, Makdessi is a short, middle-aged prisoner
with physical and mental problems that make him “vulnerable to
harassment and attacks by other inmates.”
J.A. 956.
For years,
Makdessi complained to prison officials, including in the form
of numerous written letters and grievances, about physical and
sexual
abuse
garnered
complaint
no
he
suffered
response,
expressly
in
and
prison.
one
response—to
mentioning
sexual
“Hopefully you will be well soon.”
Despite
Makdessi’s
Those
stature,
complaints
a
often
December
assault—simply
2009
stated
J.A. 974.
vulnerability,
and
repeated
complaints, Makdessi was placed in a cell with an aggressive
prison
gang
member,
Smith,
in
August
2010.
By
the
end
of
October 2010, Makdessi filed a report “stating that he had been
18
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 19 of 44
sexually assaulted by his cellmate.”
Id. 2
Yet “the standard
protocol of separating inmates alleging sexual assault was not
followed when Makdessi filed” the October 2010 report.
Id.
He
was left in the cell with Smith until his physical and mental
injuries
from
the
December
21,
2010
attack
prison infirmary for a month and a half.
sent
him
to
the
Makdessi was then
transferred to another prison and placed in protective custody.
Despite
these
facts,
the
magistrate
judge
and
district
court determined that Makdessi had failed to meet the subjective
standard for deliberate indifference, i.e., that Makdessi had
failed to show that Defendants King, Fields, and Gallihar had
actual
knowledge
Makdessi faced.
of
the
substantial
risk
of
serious
harm
The report and recommendation so concluding
contained a total of two paragraphs setting forth the applicable
law.
The
paragraph
dealing
with
deliberate
indifference
correctly recognized that to be liable, a prison official “must
actually have perceived” the risk to the prisoner.
J.A. 964.
But absent from the court’s abbreviated discussion of the law,
as
well
as
its
application
thereof
to
the
facts,
is
the
recognition that actual knowledge can be shown by circumstantial
2
Defendants disputed that the report as originally filed
stated that Smith had sexually assaulted Makdessi.
19
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 20 of 44
evidence that the risk was so obvious that the Defendants had to
know it.
See, e.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Brice, 58 F.3d at
105.
Additionally,
in
rejecting
Makdessi’s
claims,
the
court
below focused on some factors that, in light of Farmer, may be
irrelevant.
Makdessi
For example, the court seized on the fact that
did
not
“‘personally
inform[]
Capt.
Gallihar,
Lt.
Fields or Sgt. King that he feared for his life or safety.’”
J.A. 1003 (quoting J.A. 976).
Neither did Farmer—and yet, in
reversing the lower courts, which had seized on just that, the
Supreme
notice
Court
is
made
not
plain
that
dispositive”
“the
if
failure
can
it
to
shown
be
give
advance
that
the
circumstances made it reasonable to believe that the defendants
were
aware
of
a
serious
protective action.
risk
to
the
plaintiff
but
took
no
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 848-49.
Similarly, the court below focused on the fact that “only
one of the documents filed before [the] December 21 [attack]
stated
that
Makdessi
current roommate.”
prison
official
had
previously
J.A. 1003.
[cannot]
been
assaulted
by
his
Yet Farmer makes clear that “a
escape
liability
for
deliberate
indifference by showing that, while he was aware of an obvious,
substantial risk to inmate safety, he did not know that the
complainant
specific
was
especially
prisoner
who
likely
eventually
20
to
be
assaulted
committed
the
by
the
assault.”
Appeal: 13-7606
Farmer,
Doc: 47
511
Filed: 03/12/2015
U.S.
described
in
liability
that
at
843.
Farmer,
the
Pg: 21 of 44
Indeed,
“it
would
officials
Furthermore,
the
court
the
obviously
could
precisely who would attack whom.”
under
be
not
circumstances
irrelevant
guess
to
beforehand
Id. at 844.
below
underscored
that
Makdessi’s
“written complaints and grievances often sought mental health
treatment or a single cell assignment, rather than expressly
requesting
protection.”
J.A.
1006.
Even
assuming
that
the
court’s characterization of Makdessi’s complaints and grievances
is accurate, it seems apparent that both of those requests can
be construed as forms of seeking protection.
And regardless,
Farmer makes plain that whether a prisoner protests or complains
before he is injured may be irrelevant.
Finally,
the
court
below
511 U.S. at 848-49.
focused
on
the
fact
that
Defendants played no role in “assigning” cellmates, suggesting
that Defendants therefore could not be liable for any risk to
Makdessi arising from his being housed with Smith.
J.A. 1007.
That Defendants did not initially assign Smith to Makdessi’s
cell, however, does not necessarily shield them from liability
if they knew that the undisputedly vulnerable Makdessi shared a
cell with an undisputedly aggressive gang member, knew—perhaps
because
it
was
so
obvious
that
they
had
to
know—that
this
continued arrangement constituted a substantial risk of serious
harm to Makdessi, yet did nothing.
21
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 22 of 44
C.
In sum, the magistrate judge and then the district court,
which adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and report in its
entirety,
failed
to
appreciate
that
the
subjective
“actual
knowledge” standard required to find deliberate indifference may
be proven by circumstantial evidence that a risk was so obvious
that
it
had
to
have
been
known.
Further,
the
court
focused on factors that, under Farmer, may be irrelevant.
below
The
dismissal of Makdessi’s claims against Defendants Fields, King,
and Gallihar, is thus vacated, and the case is remanded for
reconsideration using the proper legal framework.
Whether Makdessi succeeds with his claims remains an open
question.
And even if Makdessi shows that the risk of serious
harm he faced was so obvious that Defendants Fields, King, and
Gallihar must have known it, Defendants may still be able to
successfully rebut the charge.
But regardless of the outcome,
the proper legal framework must be applied to address Makdessi’s
claims.
Finally, we echo the district court that “[n]o matter what
an inmate’s crime, his prison sentence should not include the
sort of victimization described in Makdessi’s many complaints
and grievances.
Prison officials, from the security officers to
the mental health professionals and grievance coordinators, have
22
Appeal: 13-7606
an
Doc: 47
ongoing
each other.”
Filed: 03/12/2015
constitutional
Pg: 23 of 44
obligation
to
protect
inmates
from
J.A. 1009.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, the dismissal of Makdessi’s
claims against Defendants Fields, King, and Gallihar is vacated,
and the matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of this
opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
23
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 24 of 44
DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in Judge Wynn’s opinion for the court.
On remand,
Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi may not prevail, but the judgment of
the district court rejecting his claim in its entirety cannot
stand.
I write separately to explain why I believe governing
legal principles require this relief.
The
inmate
Supreme
can
Court
establish
a
has
painstakingly
violation
of
the
explained
Eighth
that
an
Amendment
by
offering evidence that a prison official “knew of a substantial
risk” that the inmate would suffer “serious harm” or that the
official “must have known” about this risk.
511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994) (emphasis added).
Farmer v. Brennan,
And a court may
conclude that the official must have known of that substantial
risk based on “the very fact that the risk was obvious.”
Id.
Here, Makdessi undoubtedly suffered serious harm when he was
assaulted by his cellmate. 1
The remaining question is whether
Defendants Fields, King, and Gallihar (“the Defendants”) must
have
known
of
the
substantial
risk
that
Makdessi
would
be
assaulted by a fellow prisoner.
1
The Defendants offer no argument that Makdessi failed to
demonstrate that he suffered “serious harm,” and, given the
prison’s own medical records, such an argument would be
frivolous.
24
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
The
between
Filed: 03/12/2015
district
Makdessi
physically
security
court
level
expressly
himself
hindered
3,
Pg: 25 of 44
(5
by
back
no
gang
recognized
feet
4
the
inches
problems
and
affiliation,
“contrasts
tall,
asthma,
two
age
49,
depressed,
minor
prison
infractions)” and the prisoner who beat Makdessi, Michael Smith
“(a
‘Gangster
charges,
toward
Disciple,’
including
a
disciplinary
masturbating
non-offender,
and
numerous
record
making
aggravated
J.A. 1007. 2
fighting with another inmate).”
of
sexual
almost
30
advances
assaults,
and
Notwithstanding
these significant differences in age, size, health, disciplinary
record,
and
gang
affiliation,
however,
the
district
court
rejected Makdessi’s contention that in permitting Makdessi to
reside in the same cell as Smith, the Defendants ignored an
obvious risk of serious harm to Makdessi.
The district court offered a very limited rationale for so
holding.
The court simply stated that because the Defendants
testified that they did not “assign[] cellmates,” it could not
“find that the physical and disciplinary differences” between
Makdessi
and
Smith
undermined
the
magistrate
judge’s
determination that the Defendants lacked “prior knowledge that
Smith would likely victimize Makdessi.”
2
J.A. 1007-08 (emphasis
Citations to the J.A. refer to the parties’ Joint Appendix
filed in this case.
25
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
added). 3
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 26 of 44
For the following reasons, I cannot conclude that this
rationale provides an adequate basis for rejection of Makdessi’s
obvious risk claim.
First, the district court’s explanation evidences a belief
that Makdessi had to prove that the Defendants had actual “prior
knowledge” of the risk that he would be assaulted.
course, is quite different.
The law, of
The Supreme Court has clearly held
that “a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a
substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious,”
as
where
the
official
“had
been
exposed
to
information
concerning the risk and thus must have known about it.”
Farmer,
511 U.S. at 842 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Second,
the
district
court
also
seemed
to
believe
that
Makdessi had to prove that the Defendants knew of a substantial
risk that Smith, in particular, rather than any other inmate,
might assault Makdessi. 4
But Farmer also forecloses a specific
risk requirement of this sort.
See id. at 843 (“Nor may a
3
The magistrate judge herself offered no rationale for
recommending
rejection of
Makdessi’s
obvious
risk
claim.
Indeed, the magistrate judge failed to address Makdessi’s
obvious risk claim at all.
4
Further indicating that the district court held this
erroneous view is the significance it attached to the fact that
in Makdessi’s “dozens” of written “complaints and grievances”
only once prior to December 21 did he state that he had
“previously been assaulted by his current roommate,” Smith. See
J.A. 1003.
26
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 27 of 44
prison official escape liability for deliberate indifference by
showing that, while he was aware of an obvious, substantial risk
to
inmate
safety,
he
did
not
know
that
the
complainant
was
especially likely to be assaulted by the specific prisoner who
eventually committed the assault.”).
Third,
the
district
court
apparently
reasoned
that
the
Defendants’ testimony that they had no role in cell assignment
absolved them from liability even if they knew (or should have
known)
that
Makdessi
was
housed
with
Smith
and
that
subjected Makdessi to an obvious risk of serious harm.
this
But the
Defendants testified only that they played no role in assigning
cellmates.
They offered no testimony or other evidence that
they did not know that Makdessi and Smith were cellmates.
And
evidence in the record suggests that the Defendants did indeed
know of this. 5
As we explained in reversing the judgment after
trial for a prison guard in another Eighth Amendment case, “even
a
guard
obvious
able
to
injury
prove
of
that
he
sufficient
was
in
fact
seriousness
oblivious
may
not
to
an
escape
liability if it is shown, for example, that he . . . ‘declined
5
Fields testified that he remembered when Makdessi and
Smith were celled together.
J.A. 778.
Moreover, as the
district court noted, Gallihar testified that he, Fields, and
King, were “the officers responsible for the safety of inmates
in Makdessi’s pod,” J.A. 1005; this suggests that all three
Defendants knew that Makdessi and Smith were celled together –and would have been aware of the dangerous mismatch.
27
Appeal: 13-7606
to
Doc: 47
confirm
exist.’”
Filed: 03/12/2015
inferences
of
risk
Pg: 28 of 44
that
he
strongly
suspected
to
Brice v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101, 105 (4th
Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843 n.8).
Finally, the district court appears not to have considered
the obvious risk in housing Makdessi with Smith in the context
of
Makdessi’s
many
grievances
sexual assault at the prison.
documenting
prior
physical
and
The magistrate judge found (and
the district court agreed) that “the evidence admitted at trial
undoubtedly shows that Makdessi filed numerous grievances and
complaints to various departments, and he wrote letters . . .
alleging
that
he
had
been
sexually
assaulted
occasions while incarcerated at Wallens Ridge.”
district
court
properly
recognized
that
on
multiple
J.A. 974. 6
knowledge
of
The
serious
risk of harm could be inferred by demonstrating a “longstanding,
pervasive, [and] well-documented” risk, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
But the court
discounted Makdessi’s evidence of exactly such “well-documented”
risk for two, equally unpersuasive, reasons.
6
The magistrate judge also found Makdessi’s credibility
undermined by the attendance records that contradicted his
testimony that he spoke with defendant Boyd on a particular
date.
J.A. 971.
Of course, we defer to credibility
determinations of a trial court.
But this finding does not
undermine Makdessi’s credibility as to his “numerous grievances
and complaints” to prison officials, which the magistrate judge
expressly found believable. J.A. 974.
28
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 29 of 44
Initially, the court relied on the Defendants’ testimony
that “[s]ecurity matters or sexual assault allegations might be
directly assigned to . . . a higher-ranking officer” and so the
Defendants
“would
not
(emphasis added).
that
this
is
Testimony
assigned
to
see
[them].”
J.A.
1005
The Defendants, however, offered no evidence
in
that
necessarily
fact
what
serious
other
happened
allegations
officers
does
in
of
Makdessi’s
assault
not
case.
“might
be”
that
the
establish
Defendants had no knowledge of the risk of substantial harm to
Makdessi.
This
Makdessi’s
is
complaints
particularly
of
abuse,
so
the
given
written
the
number
policy
of
requiring
notification of all such abuse, see J.A. 494-501, and the fact
that the face of some of the complaints expressly state that
they were forwarded directly to one or more of the Defendants.
See, e.g., J.A. 246; J.A. 517.
The
other
reason
that
the
district
court
offered
for
discounting Makdessi’s multiple written grievances was that they
were “general” and “often sought mental health treatment or a
single
cell
protection.”
assignment,
J.A.
1006.
rather
But
than
expressly
examination
themselves belies this conclusion.
of
the
requesting
grievances
See, e.g., J.A. 256, 259-60,
263, 266, 274, 276, 277.
Many are specific; few are limited to
expressions
illness
of
mental
or
single-cell
assignment;
crucially, nearly all express ongoing fear of physical harm or
29
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
retaliation.
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 30 of 44
Moreover, those instances in which Makdessi did
simply plead to be assigned to a single cell to avoid further
sexual
assault
would
seem,
contrary
to
the
district
court’s
conclusion, to qualify as “expressly requesting protection.”
On remand, the district court will have an opportunity to
apply these governing principles.
The court will be able to
determine, in light of Makdessi’s undisputed vulnerability and
his multiple written complaints of abuse at the hands of other
prisoners, if the risk of serious harm to Makdessi in housing
him with an aggressive gang member who had committed numerous
assaults while imprisoned was so obvious that the Defendants
must have known of the risk, appreciated its seriousness, and
yet failed “to take reasonable measures to abate it.”
Farmer,
511 U.S. at 847. 7
“The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but
neither does it permit inhumane ones,” no matter how abhorrent a
prisoner’s crimes.
citation
omitted).
Id. at 832 (internal quotation marks and
A
prisoner
faces
a
establishing an Eighth Amendment violation.
7
daunting
task
in
But when an inmate
Of course, “it remains open to the officials to prove that
they were unaware even of an obvious risk to inmate health or
safety.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
But when the risk is
obvious, the burden shifts to the prison official to rebut the
inference that he must have known about it.
Id.
Naked
assertions of ignorance that defy prison procedure and logic
cannot satisfy this burden.
30
Appeal: 13-7606
has
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
“take[n]
advantage
of
Pg: 31 of 44
internal
prison
procedures
for
resolving inmate grievances” and these actions “do not bring
constitutionally required changes, the inmate’s task in court
will obviously be much easier.”
Id. at 847.
Most importantly,
the Supreme Court has been clear that the Eighth Amendment does
not allow prison officials “to take refuge in the zone between
ignorance of obvious risks and actual knowledge of risks.”
at 842 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Id.
Thus,
prison officials may not escape liability simply by offering a
blanket denial of any knowledge of an obvious risk.
They “are
not free to let the state of nature take its course” within
their prisons but rather “have a duty to protect prisoners from
violence at the hands of other prisoners.”
Id. at 833 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
For
judgment
these
of
the
reasons,
district
I
join
in
court
and
further proceedings.
31
the
order
remanding
vacating
the
case
the
for
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 32 of 44
SHEDD, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Makdessi waived his appellate challenge to the
judgment
in
favor
of
defendants
Bellamy,
Boyd,
and
Hall.
However, I disagree that the judges below improperly analyzed
Makdessi’s
Eighth
Amendment
claim
against
defendants
Fields,
King, and Gallihar. In my view, the majority’s consideration of
the judgment in favor of the latter three defendants is more
akin to a summary judgment review than a bench trial review, and
it fails to adequately account for the factual findings made by
the magistrate judge and reviewed de novo by the district judge. 1
I
For
purposes
of
this
appeal,
it
is
established
that
Makdessi was assaulted and injured by his cellmate, Smith, on
December
housing
21,
2010.
inmates
The
unfortunate
convicted
of
reality
violent
crimes
is
that
are
prisons
“inherently
dangerous places,” United States v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 970
(7th Cir. 2002), 2 where “acts of violence by inmates against
inmates are inevitable,” Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 980
1
I disagree with much of my colleague’s separate concurring
opinion. However, because she has joined the majority opinion,
which speaks for the Court, I will limit my comments to that
opinion.
2
Makdessi is certainly an inmate convicted of violent
crimes. He is serving two life sentences for the murders of his
wife and a third-party. See Makdessi v. Watson, 682 F.Supp.2d
633 (E.D.Va. 2010). Before being prosecuted, he collected
$700,000 from his wife’s life insurance policies. See J.A. 658.
32
Appeal: 13-7606
(4th
Doc: 47
Cir.
Filed: 03/12/2015
1985),
and
the
Pg: 33 of 44
elimination
of
such
violence
is
“virtually impossible,” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 273 n.6
(4th Cir. 1994). Although the Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on
prison officials to protect inmates from violence, Farmer v.
Brennan,
511
suffered
by
U.S.
[an
825,
inmate]
832-33
(1994),
at
hands
the
“[n]ot
of
every
another
injury
establishes
liability against a prison official,” Brown v. N.C. Dept. of
Corr.,
612
official
F.3d
720,
violates
723
the
(4th
Cir.
Eighth
2010).
Amendment
Rather,
only
if
a
he
prison
has
a
“sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834
(internal punctuation and citation omitted).
“The burden is on the [inmate] to demonstrate that prison
officials violated the Eighth Amendment, and that burden is a
heavy
one.”
2014).
Pyles
Pertinent
v.
Fahim,
here,
771
“[a]
F.3d
prison
403,
408-09
official’s
(7th
Cir.
‘deliberate
indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate
violates
prison
the
Eighth
official
Amendment.”
“demonstrates
Farmer,
deliberate
511
U.S.
at
indifference
828.
if
A
he
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety;”
stated
otherwise,
“the
test
is
whether
the
[prison
official knows] the plaintiff inmate faces a serious danger to
his safety and . . . could avert the danger easily yet . . .
fail[s] to do so.” Brown, 612 F.3d at 723 (internal punctuation
and citations omitted).
33
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 34 of 44
Deliberate indifference “is a very high standard,” Grayson
v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), which “make[s] it
considerably more difficult for [an inmate] to prevail than on a
theory
of
ordinary
negligence,”
Correctional
Servs.
Corp.
v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 73 (2001). It is a subjective standard,
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 829, that requires an inmate to prove “that
the prison official had actual knowledge of an excessive risk to
[his] safety,” Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 347 (4th Cir.
2014). The prison official “must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious
harm
exists,
and
he
must
also
draw
the
inference.”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a
substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration
in
the
usual
ways,
including
inference
from
circumstantial
evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official
knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was
obvious.” Id. at 842. Thus, if a prisoner “presents evidence
showing
that
a
substantial
risk
of
inmate
attacks
was
longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by
prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that
the
defendant-official
being
sued
had
been
exposed
to
information concerning the risk and thus must have known about
it, then such evidence could be sufficient to permit a trier of
34
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 35 of 44
fact to find that the defendant-official had actual knowledge of
the
risk.”
Id.
at
842-43
(internal
punctuation
and
citation
omitted).
However, “[t]hat a trier of fact may infer knowledge from
the obvious . . . does not mean that it must do so.” Id. at 844.
Therefore, prison officials may defeat an Eighth Amendment claim
by
showing,
underlying
“for
facts
example,
that
indicating
a
they
did
sufficiently
not
know
of
substantial
the
danger
and that they were therefore unaware of a danger. . . .” Id.
This is true even “if the risk was obvious and a reasonable
prison official would have noticed it.” Id. at 842. Moreover,
although
the
circumstantial
inmate
may
evidence,
prove
he
deliberate
may
not
rely
indifference
on
by
“unsupported
speculation.” Danser, 772 F.3d at 348 n.10.
II
Makdessi did not invoke his jury trial right; therefore,
the district judge referred this case to the magistrate judge
“for
appropriate
findings
of
fact
proceedings
and
and
conclusions
preparation
of
law
of
and
proposed
recommended
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” J.A. 997. As
Makdessi notes, the evidentiary hearing before the magistrate
judge was “‘the equivalent of a bench trial.’” Opening Brief for
Makdessi, at 28 (quoting Hicks v. Norwood, 640 F.3d 839, 842
(8th
Cir.
2011)).
The
majority
35
appears
to
agree
with
this
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 36 of 44
characterization. See Majority Op., at 12 (noting standard of
review from a bench trial judgment).
In this posture, we must accept the trial judge’s factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but we review the
judge’s legal determinations de novo. F.T.C. v. Ross, 743 F.3d
886, 894 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 92 (2014). The
majority primarily bases its decision to vacate the judgment on
its conclusion that the judges below “failed to appreciate that
the
subjective
‘actual
knowledge’
standard
required
to
find
deliberate indifference may be proven by circumstantial evidence
that a risk was so obvious that it had to have been known.”
Majority Op., at 22. The record belies this conclusion.
A.
Prior to the bench trial, the district judge denied these
defendants’
summary
judgment
motion.
At
the
summary
judgment
stage, the district judge was required to view the facts in the
light most favorable to Makdessi, the nonmoving party. Ricci v.
DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009). In essence, the district
judge
was
events. 3
required
The
to
district
accept
judge
as
true
expressly
3
Makdessi’s
noted
that
version
of
deliberate
The majority recounts Makdessi’s testimony in detail, see
Majority Op., at 4-8, but devotes only one paragraph to the
defendants’ version of events, see id. at 8. Notably, much of
Makdessi’s self-serving testimony was not credited by the judges
below and does not constitute the “facts” of the case. For
(Continued)
36
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 37 of 44
indifference may be proven by circumstantial evidence, J.A. 226,
and he concluded that “Makdessi’s allegations and evidence are
sufficient to present disputed issues of material fact as to
whether each of these defendants must have known facts before
December
housing
21,
2010,
Makdessi
on
in
which
the
they
same
must
cell
have
with
perceived
Smith
that
created
a
substantial and imminent risk that Smith would cause Makdessi
serious harm,” J.A. 229. The summary judgment ruling faithfully
applied the Farmer deliberate indifference standard.
This case thereafter proceeded to the bench trial before
the magistrate judge, and Makdessi bore the burden of proving
his Eighth Amendment claim. The magistrate judge made specific
and detailed factual findings based on the evidence presented.
The
magistrate
Fields,
King,
judge
and
recognized
Gallihar
failed
that
to
Makdessi
protect
argued
him
from
that
the
example, the majority notes that Makdessi testified that on the
day before Smith assaulted him, he told defendant Fields “that
he feared for his life due to his cellmate Smith, a gang leader,
and that he wanted to be placed in protective custody.” Majority
Op., at 6. However, the magistrate judge specifically rejected
this testimony, finding it to be “incredible.” J.A. 972. The
majority also states that Makdessi testified that Smith raped
him on December 21, 2010. See Majority Op., at 6. However, one
witness (Dr. Thompson) testified that Makdessi expressly denied
that Smith raped him. See J.A. 731-32, 738-39. Ultimately, the
magistrate judge made no finding that Makdessi was raped.
37
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
December
21,
2010,
received
either
assault
verbally
Pg: 38 of 44
“based
directly
on
information
from
Makdessi
they
or
had
through
grievances Makdessi had filed prior to that time, from which
they learned Smith posed a substantial risk to his safety.” J.A.
969. Addressing these arguments, the magistrate judge found that
(1) Makdessi did not personally inform Fields, King, or Gallihar
before December 21, 2010, that he feared for his safety, J.A.
972, 976; and (2) Makdessi failed to prove that these defendants
knew of his prior grievances before December 21, 2010, J.A. 97374,
976.
In
light
of
these
findings,
the
magistrate
judge
recommended that judgment be entered in these defendants’ favor.
Makdessi
objected
to
the
magistrate
judge’s
report
and
recommendation, and the district judge extensively reviewed de
novo
Makdessi’s
properly
1000
objections.
recognized
(noting
that
the
In
doing
controlling
deliberate
so,
legal
indifference
the
district
standard,
may
be
judge
see
shown
J.A.
by
circumstantial evidence), and he thoroughly detailed his bases
for overruling Makdessi’s objections.
The district judge first explained that Makdessi failed to
object to the magistrate judge’s specific factual finding that
he did not personally inform Fields, King, or Gallihar before
December 21, 2010, that he feared for his safety. J.A. 1003. The
district judge then examined Makdessi’s objections regarding the
magistrate judge’s consideration of “other evidence that Smith
38
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 39 of 44
posed a risk to Makdessi.” J.A. 1003. Pointing directly to the
magistrate judge’s factual findings and other evidence in the
record, the district judge specifically considered and rejected
Makdessi’s arguments that (1) he proved deliberate indifference
by showing that the risk of harm was longstanding and welldocumented, and the circumstances suggest that the defendants
had been exposed to information concerning the risk, J.A. 1004;
(2)
judgment
in
Makdessi’s
favor
is
proper
because
the
defendants’ response was so patently inadequate that they must
have known of the risk, J.A. 1006; (3) the risk to Makdessi was
so obvious that the defendants knew of it because they could not
have
failed
to
know
of
it,
J.A.
1007;
and
(4)
because
the
defendants knew Makdessi had been labeled as a snitch, they must
have known how that the label exposed him to retaliation or risk
of assault, J.A. 1008. Accordingly, the district judge overruled
Makdessi’s
objections,
adopted
the
report
and
recommendation,
and entered judgment against Makdessi.
B.
As
failed
noted,
to
the
majority
appreciate
that
concludes
Makdessi
that
could
the
prove
judges
his
below
case
by
circumstantial evidence. Explaining its decision, the majority
identifies several “facts” that it believes are sufficient for a
factfinder to find that the risk of harm Smith posed to Makdessi
was so obvious that defendants Fields, King, and Gallihar must
39
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 40 of 44
have known of it. See Majority Op., at 18-19. Specifically, the
majority states:
(1) “Makdessi is a short, middle-aged prisoner with
physical and mental problems that make him ‘vulnerable
to harassment and attacks by other inmates;’” 4
(2)
“For
years,
Makdessi
complained
to
prison
officials, including in the form of numerous written
letters and grievances, about physical and sexual
abuse he suffered in prison;”
(3) “Those complaints often garnered no response, and
one response – to a December 2009 complaint expressly
mentioning sexual assault – simply stated ‘Hopefully
you will be well soon;’”
(4) “Despite Makdessi’s stature, vulnerability, and
repeated complaints, Makdessi was placed in a cell
with an aggressive prison gang member, Smith, in
August 2010;”
(5) “By the end of October 2010, Makdessi filed a
report ‘stating that he had been sexually assaulted by
his cellmate;’”
(6) “Yet ‘the standard protocol of separating inmates
alleging sexual assault was not followed when Makdessi
filed’ the October 2010 report;” and
(7) Makdessi “was left in the cell with Smith until
his physical and mental injuries from the December 21,
2010 attack sent him to the prison infirmary for a
month and a half.”
The majority then acknowledges that even if Makdessi shows on
remand “that the risk of serious harm he faced was so obvious
4
The magistrate judge actually stated that Makdessi
"described himself as a 5’4”, 49-year-old man with both physical
and mental ailments rendering him vulnerable to harassment and
attacks by other inmates.” J.A. 956 (emphasis added).
40
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 41 of 44
that [the defendants] must have known it, [the defendants] may
still be able to successfully rebut the charge.” Majority Op.,
at 22.
If this was an appeal from the grant of summary judgment
(like Farmer), then I might agree with the majority’s analysis
that further consideration is merited. However, the record makes
it
clear
below
that
this
considered
findings
by
inquiry
this
which
has
evidence
these
already
and
made
defendants
occurred:
the
appropriate
completely
judges
factual
rebutted
Makdessi’s claim.
“To
context,
establish
a
that
plaintiff
a
risk
generally
is
is
‘obvious’
required
to
in
this
show
legal
that
the
defendant ‘had been exposed to information concerning the risk
and thus must have known about it.’” Danser, 772 F.3d at 348
(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). Most of the facts identified
by the majority involve the grievances and complaints Makdessi
filed before December 21, 2010. As the district judge implicitly
recognized in denying summary judgment, the number of Makdessi’s
prior grievances might well be sufficient to permit a factfinder
to conclude that the defendants knew of a substantial risk to
him. However, based on the trial evidence presented (both direct
and circumstantial), the magistrate judge and the district judge
found that the defendants did not have actual knowledge of the
grievances.
This
finding
is
not
41
clearly
erroneous,
and
the
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
majority
does
consideration
Filed: 03/12/2015
not
of
contend
the
Pg: 42 of 44
otherwise.
prior
Therefore,
grievances
is
further
irrelevant
to
Makdessi’s claim against these defendants. See Danser, 772 F.3d
at 348-49 (rejecting Eighth Amendment claim because there was no
evidence
that
prison
official
was
exposed
to
information
concerning risk to the inmate). 5
Removing the prior grievances from the analysis leaves only
the following facts identified by the majority: Makdessi’s selfdescription
of
his
physical
and
mental
problems
and
his
assertion that he was vulnerable to harassment and attacks by
other
inmates;
Makdessi’s
placement
in
a
cell
with
a
known
prison gang member, Smith, in August 2010; and Smith’s December
21, 2010, assault on Makdessi. Of course, it should be selfevident that the fact that Smith assaulted Makdessi on December
21, 2010, does nothing to suggest that any defendant knew (or
should have known) before that day that Smith posed a risk of
serious harm to Makdessi.
The
majority
is
thus
left
with
the
fact
that
the
“vulnerable” Makdessi was housed in a cell with the “aggressive
prison
gang
member”
Smith
before
5
the
assault
occurred.
This
The majority does not point to any evidence tending to
establish that these defendants deliberately blinded themselves
to Makdessi’s grievances. Moreover, as I have noted, Makdessi
cannot rely on unsupported speculation to establish deliberate
indifference. Danser, 772 F.3d at 348 n.10.
42
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 43 of 44
fact, without more, does not suggest that the defendants were
deliberately
indifferent
to
Makdessi’s
safety.
See,
e.g.,
Shields v. Dart, 664 F.3d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining
that “a general risk of violence in a maximum security unit does
not by itself establish knowledge of a substantial risk of harm”
for purposes of the Eighth Amendment); Ruefly v. Landon, 825
F.2d 792, 794 (4th Cir. 1987) (affirming in a pre-Farmer case
the
dismissal
plaintiff
of
only
an
Eighth
alleged
Amendment
that
the
complaint
prison
because
officials
the
“generally
knew” that the inmate who assaulted him was a violent person).
In any event, the district judge explained that “[e]ach of the
defendants testified that he had no involvement in assigning
cellmates.” J.A. 1007. Therefore, the decision to house Makdessi
and Smith together has no bearing as to whether these defendants
violated the Eighth Amendment. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an individual to be
liable under § 1983, it must be affirmatively shown that the
official
charged
acted
personally
in
the
deprivation
of
the
plaintiff’s rights.” (internal punctuation omitted)).
C.
In denying the summary judgment motion, the district judge
recognized
that
Makdessi
alleged
facts
and
circumstances
sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that defendants
Fields,
King,
and
Gallihar
were
43
deliberately
indifferent.
Appeal: 13-7606
Doc: 47
Filed: 03/12/2015
Pg: 44 of 44
However, at the subsequent bench trial, the magistrate judge –
sitting
as
reviewed
the
the
factfinder
objections
–
to
and
the
the
report
district
and
judge
–
who
recommendation
-
carefully considered the evidence presented, and they concluded
that
Makdessi
failed
to
meet
his
high
burden
of
proving
deliberate indifference. The decision is amply supported by the
evidence presented, the factual findings, and the controlling
legal
standard,
presented
a
and
neither
sufficient
Makdessi
reason
to
set
nor
the
aside
majority
that
has
decision. 6
Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Fields, King, and Gallihar
should be affirmed.
III
Based on the foregoing, I concur in Part II of the majority
opinion, but I dissent from the remainder.
6
As a second reason for vacating the judgment, the majority
states that “the court below focused on factors that, under
Farmer, may be irrelevant.” Majority Op., at 22. When the
decision below is viewed in its entirety and in its proper
context, it is clear that the judges fairly considered, and
decided the case on, all of the evidence presented.
44
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?