The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I disagree that a reasonable prison official in Overberg’s position should have known he was violating Nelson’s clearly established rights, I would reverse the order of the district court denying summary judgment. Nelson’s two vague letters sent mixed signals to Overberg. Nelson opened his first letter by noting that he was “pleased” with his placement, and acknowledged in his second letter that he had been “flowing smoothly and easily with the system” while awaiting placement. Although Nelson notified Over-berg that he had received a threatening letter, he did not identify by name or prison number those threatening him; nor did he describe the circumstances surrounding the threat or append a copy of the threatening letter. We now know that Lisa Haynes had informed Nelson that her brother, a major cocaine dealer, and his friends were planning to attack him. We also know that the language of the threat Nelson received suggested it came from Lisa Haynes’ brother, thereby confirming that Nelson had dangerous *167 enemies at OCI. Overberg, however, did not have the benefit of this information when he declined to act on Nelson’s communications.
Approximately 18,000 inmates are placed each year in the Ohio prison system, and Overberg receives about seventy-five placement appeals per week. Under these circumstances, Nelson’s two vague letters lacked the specificity to put a reasonable classification chief on notice that Nelson faced a genuine risk of physical violence. Overberg therefore was entitled to qualified immunity on Nelson’s Eighth Amendment claim.
Moreover, even if the majority is correct that Overberg’s conduct was sufficiently negligent that he was not entitled to qualified immunity, clearly, there was no' evidence of the type of “deliberate' indifference” that would permit Nelson to recover on thé merits of his Eighth Amendment-claim. Nelson has adduced no proof that Overberg acted in an “obdurate” or “wanton” manner, knowing that he was violating Nelson’s 'rights.' Accordingly, there was no genuine issue'of material fact on the merits of Nelson’s Eighth Amendment claim, and .the district court should have granted summary judgment for Overberg.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.