explaining that Farmer requires “the defendant-official to have actual knowledge of the risk, foreclosing] imputed knowledge as the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference” (quoting Whiting v. Marathon Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 382 F.3d 700, 704 (7th Cir.2004))
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Farmer requires “the defendant-official to have actual knowledge of the risk, foreclosing] imputed knowledge as the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference” (quoting Whiting v. Marathon Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 382 F.3d 700, 704 (7th Cir.2004))
- concluding that plaintiff failed to show that the jailer ignored a serious medical need in part because he “checked on the inmates at hourly intervals, and no evidence indicates that the inmates said anything about [the inmate’s] condition during one of those checks”
- finding that defendants did not deliberately ignore a serious medical condition that was obvious or known to them because none of them knew or suspected that plaintiff had ingested Du-ragesic patches or a potentially lethal combination of drugs
- holding that a jailer was not 11 Case: 20-11147 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 12 of 23 deliberately indifferent to the risk of a fatal drug overdose in part because the jailer “observed [the inmate] ‘laughing and talking’ with his cellmates”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the decision of the district court who found that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge who conducted an exhaustive review of the record and found that it is “replete with conflicting evidence.” The court recognized that “the Defendants could not have reasonably known that Buster had eaten the Duragesic patch which contributed to his death. However, it should be for a jury’s determination whether, inter alia, Buster exhibited signs of intoxication or being under the influence of an intoxicant; Defendant’s knew or should have known that Buster needed medical attention; the cell in which Buster died was not illuminated such that Defendant Johnson could not see into the cell; or fellow inmates tried to obtain help for Buster before he died.”
I agree with the district court that “[t]he record before the Court is replete with instances of the existence of genuine issues of material fact ...” and “[a]t a minimum, the record leaves open the questions of whether Buster exhibited any signs of needing medical attention and whether Defendants disregarded that need.”