Swan

Swan v. Hernandez

Good Law
80 F. App'x 4
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 22, 2003No. 02-17078; D.C. No. CV-00-03464-VRWCalifornia411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*5 MEMORANDUM **

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Byron Swan, officers Moore and Holt violated Swan’s constitutional right when they failed to act despite knowing that Swan faced a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Swan, a special needs inmate, suffered serious harm—and was in jeopardy of sustaining even more substantial injury—when other prisoners kicked him in the face with something sharp. Swan told Moore and Holt about the specific threats he received in the days leading up to his assault. He told the officials who threatened him, why they threatened him, and where and when they threatened to attack him. Further, Moore acknowledged in a conversation with Holt and Swan that Swan’s family had also expressed concern about Swan’s safety.

Moore and Holt failed to protect Swan from the imminent assault. Instead, Holt instructed Swan to return to his cell—even though the attack was threatened to occur that day. Holt did suggest, however, that Swan speak with his counselor about his safety concerns the following day “and maybe she can send you to ‘B’ facility.” This advice supports the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.