Ramirez-Palmer

Opinion by Judge RYMER; Partial Dissent by Judge CANBY.

This appeal raises the question of whether, after Saucier v. Katz, 583 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), qualified immunity may be denied in an Eighth Amendment case solely because there is triable issue of fact as to whether a prison official was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s safety.

Jeffrey Ford, an inmate at the California Medical Facility-Vaeaville (CMF), was killed by his cellmate James Diesso while they were housed in the CMF Psychiatric Administrative Segregation Unit (PAS). Ford’s family and Estate brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of California and a number of prison officials, including Associate Warden Edward Caden for allowing Diesso to be double-celled, and Correctional Lieutenant Eric Arnold and Correctional Sergeant Robert Williams for allowing Ford to be double-celled with Diesso. 1 Caden, Arnold and Williams moved for summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity. We held in Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir.1992), that a finding of deliberate indifference (or of a triable issue as to it) necessarily precludes a finding of qualified…

dissenting in part:

I agree with Judge Rymer’s well-crafted opinion in most respects. Specifically, I agree that Saucier requires a two-step analysis of qualified immunity in this Eighth Amendment case. I also agree that, given Diesso’s classification as appropriate for double-celling, reasonable officers in the position of Arnold and Williams would not have known that double-celling Ford with Diesso would violate Ford’s Eighth Amendment rights.

My disagreement is over the decision by Caden to continue Diesso’s classification as “D” — appropriate for double celling. Judge Rymer’s opinion scrupulously sets forth Diesso’s extraordinary history of violence. It also accurately recites that Ca-den knew of that history, knew that Diesso was given the highest classification of dangerousness, knew of recent incidents and that they had caused Lieutenant Sanchez to note that Diesso should be changed to a single-cell category. Without my repeating all the details so clearly set forth by Judge Rymer, it is sufficient to say that I am convinced that a reasonable officer in Caden’s position would have known that the double-celling classification of Diesso exposed any future cellmate to an…

301 F.3d 1043 ESTATE OF Jeffrey FORD; Eva Ford, individually and in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey Ford; Thomas Ray Ford, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ana M. RAMIREZ-PALMER, Defendant, and Edward Caden; Eric Arnold; Robert Williams, Defendants-Appellants. No. 01-15769. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 11, 2002. Filed August 23, 2002. J. Scott Smith, Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, Sacramento, CA, for the defendants-appellants. Stan Casper, Casper, Meadows & Schwartz, Walnut Creek, CA, and John Houston Scott, Prentice & Scott, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-01234-GEB. Before: CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN, * Senior District Judge. Opinion by Judge RYMER; Partial Dissent by Judge CANBY. RYMER, Circuit Judge. 1 This appeal raises the question of whether, after Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), qualified immunity may be denied in an Eighth Amendment case solely because there is triable issue of fact…