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“UNPUBLISHED” to “PUBLISHED.”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unpublished opinions as precedent is deleted.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