Farmer v. Brennan

United States Supreme Court · 1994 · Torts

TortsEighth AmendmentPrison conditionsFailure to protectDeliberate indifferencedeliberate indifferencesubjective recklessnessfailure to protect

Facts

Petitioner, a biologically male federal prisoner diagnosed by Bureau of Prisons medical personnel as a transsexual and described by the parties as projecting feminine characteristics, had previously been housed at times in segregation, including at least once because of safety concerns. In 1989 petitioner was transferred for disciplinary reasons from FCI-Oxford to USP-Terre Haute, a penitentiary, and after a brief stay in administrative segregation was placed in the general population. Petitioner did not object to the transfer or placement beforehand. Within two weeks, according to petitioner's allegations, petitioner was beaten and raped by another inmate and later claimed that respondents had knowingly exposed petitioner to a violent environment and a heightened risk of sexual attack.

Issue

What mental state must a prison official have to be liable under the Eighth Amendment for failing to protect an inmate from violence by other prisoners? More specifically, does deliberate indifference require that the official actually know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm, or is it enough that the official should have known of the risk?

Rule

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only if two requirements are met: objectively, the inmate must be incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; subjectively, the official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. The official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk exists, and must also draw that inference; however, knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including evidence that the risk was obvious. An official who responds reasonably to a known substantial risk is not liable even if the harm ultimately is not averted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a prison in Ohio, Officer Lena Ortiz was assigned to review weekly incident summaries but never opened them. Those summaries described repeated nighttime knife assaults in Unit C. After Marcus Reed was housed there, another inmate stabbed him during lights-out.

If Marcus sues under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect, what is the strongest argument against liability on these facts alone?

Explanation. The majority held that failure-to-protect liability requires more than negligence: the official must actually know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm. Evidence that Lena should have read the reports may show poor performance, but an official's failure to perceive a risk she should have perceived is not enough. Personal warning by the inmate is not required, intent to cause harm is not required, and inmate-on-inmate violence can support liability when the standard is met. (Derived from Farmer v. Brennan (n.d.).)