Steven George Bodnar v. Bryan English, et al.

Summary

The court screened Steven George Bodnar’s prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It permitted him to proceed against Warden Bryan English in his official capacity for permanent injunctive relief concerning protection from attacks by other inmates, while dismissing the remaining claims and defendants. The court also construed the complaint as including a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and ordered a response addressing Bodnar’s safety measures.

Holdings

1. A prisoner states an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim when the allegations plausibly show that officials were deliberately indifferent to a specific, credible, and imminent risk of serious harm; Bodnar's series of attacks and threats plausibly supported limited prospective relief concerning his return to general population.
2. Generalized fears that an ICE detainee, an inmate with a different security classification, or an inmate who may pose a greater security threat could cause harm do not, without more, establish a specific, credible, and imminent risk of serious harm.
3. A defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 solely because of supervisory status or because the plaintiff sent the defendant a general request for help; liability requires personal participation in the constitutional violation.
4. A warden is a proper official-capacity defendant for prospective injunctive relief when the warden is responsible for carrying out the injunction.
5. A department or health-care operations entity that is not a suable person, and a private company performing a public function absent allegations that its own policy caused the constitutional violation, cannot be held liable under § 1983.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bodnar stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim sufficient to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
2. Whether Bodnar's generalized and speculative allegations concerning possible future harm from inmates and ICE detainees stated a constitutional claim.
3. Whether Bodnar stated claims against supervisory officials, departments, health-care entities, and other defendants without allegations of their personal involvement or an unconstitutional policy.
4. Whether the warden could be sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief concerning Bodnar's safety.

Disposition

other