Glaze v. Andrews, et al., No. 12-2022 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought this action alleging that a correctional officer and a lieutenant at the jail in which plaintiff was detained violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by failing to protect him from being attacked by three fellow inmates. Both defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the correctional officer where there was sufficient evidence on the present limited record from which a jury could infer that he acted with the requisite mental state for a constitutional violation. The court concluded, however, that there was no admissible evidence to establish that the lieutenant knew about a substantial risk to plaintiff's safety and, thus, the lieutenant was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and denied in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. In an action alleging defendants failed to protect plaintiff, then a jail detainee awaiting trial, from attack by other inmates, the district court did not err in denying defendant Childs' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as there was evidence from which a jury could conclude Childs was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's safety by failing to act on a warning of a possible attack; however, the district court erred in denying defendant Andrews' summary judgment motion as there was no admissible evidence that Andrews knew about a substantial risk to plaintiff's safety and he was entitled to qualified immunity.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.