Wilk v. Neven, No. 17-17355 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for prison officials in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. The panel held that defendants violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be protected from serious harm while incarcerated. The panel also held that a reasonable fact-finder would be able to conclude that defendants were subjectively aware of the substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff, and failed to respond reasonably; any reasonable prison official in the defendants' position would know that the actions defendants took, and failed to take, violated the Eighth Amendment; none of the defendants can claim ignorance to a prisoner's right to be protected from violence at the hands of other inmates where that right has been clearly established in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 833 (1994).
Finally, the panel noted that throughout proceedings in the district court plaintiff struggled to obtain discovery from defendants. On remand, plaintiff should have another opportunity to seek the materials he requested previously, and the panel encouraged the district court to appoint him counsel.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. Plaintiff alleged that the prison warden, an associate warden and a caseworker participated in a full classification meeting to discuss plaintiff’s housing assignment after plaintiff reported that an inmate had threatened to attack and kill him. Plaintiff alleged that after the meeting, despite knowing about the risk to plaintiff, defendants failed to respond reasonably to protect plaintiff. The panel held that taking plaintiff’s evidence as true and viewing it in the light most favorable to him, defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be protected from serious harm while incarcerated. The panel held that a reasonable fact-finder would be able to conclude that defendants were subjectively aware of the substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff, and failed to respond reasonably. The panel held that any reasonable prison official in the defendants’ position would know that the actions defendants took, and failed to take, violated the Eighth Amendment. None of the defendants could claim ignorance to a prisoner’s WILK V. NEVEN 3 right to be protected from violence at the hands of other inmates. That right has been clearly established since the Supreme Court’s decision in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). The panel held that throughout proceedings in the district court, while he was still incarcerated, plaintiff struggled to obtain discovery from defendants, who resisted turning over crucial documents such as his institutional file and their records of housing classification meetings. On remand, the panel instructed that plaintiff should have another opportunity to seek the materials he requested previously, which had the potential to identify or exclude the defendants. To assist with this process, the panel encouraged the district court to appoint counsel.
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.