Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (October 16, 1990)
Docket number: 90-6610
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/alan-large-washington-detention-center-37332736
Id. vLex: VLEX-37332736
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

U.S. Supreme Court - Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Bruce Cummings, Appellant, v. Willis Roberts, Acting Warden And/or Superintendent for the St. Louis City Jail; Thomas Booker, Chief of Security for the St. Louis City Jail; and Donald Hill, Correctional Officer for the St. Louis City Jail, Appellees., 628 F.2d 1065 (8th Cir. 1980) Appellant, v. Willis Roberts, Acting Warden And/or Superintendent for the St. Louis City Jail; Thomas Booker, Chief of Security for the St. Louis City Jail; and Donald Hill, Correctional Officer for the St. Louis City Jail, Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-90-1014-S)
Alan R. Large, Appellant Pro Se.Thomas Michael Preston, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.Before PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.PER CURIAM:Alan R. Large, an inmate at the Washington County Detention Center in Maryland, was involved in two fights with other inmates in December 1989, one of which left him with a permanent hearing loss in his right ear. He filed a claim against the Detention Center under 42 U.S.C. Sec . 1983 claiming (1) that the prison negligently failed to protect him from a known violent inmate, and (2) that the prison has shown deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by refusing to provide him with a hearing aid. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant and Large now appeals.We agree with the district court on Large's first claim. The Supreme Court has held that mere negligent failure to protect an inmate from another inmate is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. Sec . 1983. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). Also, Large has admitted that it was he who initiated the fight which resulted in the injuries at issue.However, we disagree with the district court's summary dismissal of the second claim. Under Estelle v. Gamble,Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access