Vandevender v. Sass, No. 19-1230 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate with a wooden board at a correctional facility, he suffered head injuries that require life-long medical treatment and has developed a seizure disorder. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against seven correctional facility officials, alleging that each violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, holding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment violation. In this case, the amended complaint failed to allege that defendant had previously been threatened by the assailant or by another inmate; that the assailant was known to be a violent, volatile inmate; that plaintiff and the assailant had previously argued or fought, been cellmates at any time, or even knew each other; or that either plaintiff or the assailant have recently been in protective custody or in a restrictive status such as administrative segregation. The court explained that plaintiff was the unfortunate victim of a surprise attack and thus his failure-to-protect claim failed.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing this prisoner civil rights action for failure to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation; plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim failed to allege any prior threats by the inmate who assaulted him, that the inmate was known to be violent, that the men had ever argued, fought or been cellmates or that either men had been in any kind of restrictive custody or status before the attack; viewed from this perspective, plaintiff was the unfortunate victim of a surprise attack and failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect violation. Judge Kelly, concurring.
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.