Moore

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Eugene Moore brought suit in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , seeking compensatory damages from prison officials for alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment. Even if prison officials violated Moore’s constitutional right to exercise, reasonable prison officials in Appellees’ position would not have understood that what they were doing violated that right, and therefore qualified immunity shields Appellees from suit in the first instance.

The purpose of the qualified immunity rule is to protect from suit government officials who make reasonable mistakes in the course of duty. It provides protection for “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 495 , 111 S.Ct. 1934 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991). “[I]f a [constitutional] violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next ... step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). “The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Id.…

concurring.

I concur in the result because I believe the district court properly found there was no deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s rights in the circumstances of this case. There was no constitutional violation for that reason, and I would not reach qualified immunity.