Brown v. North Carolina Department of Corrections

Error: Bad annotation destination

Filed: July 20, 2010

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8501

SAMUEL ALBRIGHT BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; FNU WINKLER,

Officer; FNU SIMMS, Officer; FNU TEAGUE, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

O R D E R

Upon Appellant’s motion for publication of the court’s

opinion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to publish is granted.

The court amends its opinion filed January 11, 2010, as

follows:

On the cover sheet, section 1 -- the status is changed from

“UNPUBLISHED” to “PUBLISHED.”

On the cover sheet, section 6 -- the status line is changed to

read: “Vacated and remanded by published opinion.”

-2-

On the cover sheet -- the final line referencing the use of

unpublished opinions as precedent is deleted.

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL ALBRIGHT BROWN, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF  No. 08-8501

CORRECTIONS; FNU WINKLER,

Officer; FNU SIMMS, Officer; FNU

TEAGUE, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge.

(5:08-cv-00113-GCM)

Argued: October 27, 2009

Decided: January 11, 2010

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges,

and Benson E. LEGG, United States District Judge for the

District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Legg

wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael and Judge Gregory

joined.

2 BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Charles Matthew Hill, PUBLIC JUSTICE CEN-

TER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. James Philip Allen,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Roy

Cooper, Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

OPINION

LEGG, District Judge:

Samuel Albright Brown, an inmate incarcerated at the

Alexander Correctional Institute ("ACI") in Taylorsville,

North Carolina, filed the instant suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging that Defendants, Correctional Officers Winkler,

Teague, and Simms, and the North Carolina Department of

Corrections, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment

of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Brown alleges

that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the serious

harm he suffered at the hands of a fellow inmate. The district

court, after reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. Because we disagree with

the district court’s finding that Brown’s complaint fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we vacate its

dismissal of the case and remand the matter for further pro-

ceedings.

I.

Brown’s complaint alleges the following facts. On May 9,

2008, an ACI staff member instructed him to enter the "Hous-

ing Block" to retrieve a number of cleaning supplies. The staff

member gave the instruction despite having knowledge that

BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 3

another inmate in the Housing Block harbored a grudge

against Brown. While gathering the cleaning supplies, Brown

was assaulted and brutally beaten by that inmate. As a result

of that assault, a steel plate was inserted into Brown’s jaw and

he received "ongoing" medical care for "permanent" injuries.

Brown’s complaint further alleges that Officer Simms was

in "the Block" when the assault occurred, that Officer Teague

observed the assault, and that the "staff officers in question

were [n]egligent and placed [Brown] in a dangerous and vul-

nerable position."

In an administrative grievance form attached to his com-

plaint, Brown specified that Officer Winkler was the staff

member who was aware of the other inmate’s grudge against

Brown but nonetheless sent him to pick up cleaning supplies.

The administrative grievance form also alleges that Officer

Teague admitted to Brown that he witnessed the assault but

chose not to intervene.

The district court dismissed the case pursuant to § 1915A,

finding that Brown’s complaint failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Brown now appeals the dis-

missal of his claims against Officers Winkler, Teague, and

Simms. He does not appeal, however, the dismissal of his

claim against the North Carolina Department of Corrections.

II.

Under § 1915A, district courts are required to review "any

complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress

from a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In doing

so, a court must either "identify cognizable claims or dismiss

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the com-

plaint . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

A complaint should be dismissed "if it does not allege

‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4 BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

face.’" Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.

2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twobly, 550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007)). In evaluating a complaint, this Court "will construe

the factual allegations ‘in the light most favorable to the plain-

tiff.’" Schatz v. Rosenberg, 943 F.2d 485, 489 (4th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Battlefield Builders v. Swango, 743 F.2d 1060, 1062

(4th Cir. 1984)). Here, "[l]iberal construction of the pleading

is particularly appropriate" because it "is a pro se complaint

raising civil rights issues." Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291,

1295 (4th Cir. 1978) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

521 (1972)). We review de novo dismissals for failure to state

a claim. Schatz, 943 F.2d at 489.

III.

The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials

"to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other pris-

oners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Not

every injury suffered by a prisoner at the hands of another

establishes liability against a prison official, however. To

make a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner

must satisfy two elements. First, "the deprivation alleged must

be sufficiently serious." Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 349

F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). "To demonstrate such an extreme depriva-

tion, a prisoner must allege a serious or significant physical

or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions."

Id. In this case, it is uncontested that Brown suffered signifi-

cant physical injuries as a result of the other inmate’s attack.

Second, a prisoner must demonstrate that the prison official

had a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Id. (quoting Wil-

son v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). When an inmate

makes a challenge under the Eighth Amendment, "the requi-

site state of mind is one of deliberate indifference to inmate

health or safety." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). A prison official demonstrates deliberate indiffer-

ence if he "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 5

inmate health or safety." Id. In other words, "the test is

whether the guards know the plaintiff inmate faces a serious

danger to his safety and they could avert the danger easily yet

they fail to do so." Case v. Ahitow, 301 F.3d 605, 607 (4th

Cir. 2002).

Applying that two-pronged test to the instant facts, we hold

that the district court erred in dismissing Brown’s claims

against Officers Winkler, Teague, and Simms.

A.

The State of North Carolina, representing each of the

Defendants, concedes error with respect to the claims against

Officers Winkler and Teague. The state acknowledges that the

complaint sufficiently alleges that Officer Teague observed

the altercation and failed to respond. The state also acknowl-

edges that Brown’s administrative grievance form states that

Officer Winkler was aware of the other inmate’s grudge but

still sent Brown into the Housing Block to pick up supplies.

We agree that those allegations sufficiently state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. As a result, the district court

should not have dismissed Brown’s claims against Officers

Winkler and Teague.

B.

The State of North Carolina does not concede error with

respect to the claim against Officer Simms. The state contends

that no reasonable person could infer from the complaint that

Officer Simms knew of the assault in time to intervene, yet

deliberately and indifferently failed to do so.

We disagree with that reading of the record. Brown’s com-

plaint alleges that Officer Simms was in "the Block" when the

assault occurred. A reasonable person could infer from that

statement that Officer Simms was aware of the attack, and

6 BROWN v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

that his failure to intervene represented deliberate indifference

to a serious risk of harm.

Similarly, Brown’s complaint states that "staff members"

were aware of the other inmate’s grudge, that the staff mem-

bers knew there were prior problems between that inmate and

Brown, and that they placed Brown "in a [d]angerous and vul-

nerable position." Because there were only three ACI correc-

tion officers designated in the complaint, it is reasonable to

assume that Brown was naming Officer Simms when he

described the staff members who were deliberately indifferent

to the serious harm posed by his fellow inmate. Accordingly,

the district court should not have dismissed Brown’s claim

against Officer Simms.

IV.

Because Brown’s complaint alleges facts sufficient to state

a plausible claim, we vacate the district court’s dismissal

under § 1915A and remand the matter for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED