Miller v. McBride
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
64 Fed. Appx. 558 (2003)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Paul Eugene Miller (plaintiff) was injured during multiple fights with other inmates. Miller initially requested that prison officials (defendants) place him in single-cell protective custody after he was threatened by several members of the Gangster Disciples, a prison gang. Although Miller was placed in protective custody, prison officials could not place him in a single cell because none were available. Months later, J. Grandberry, an alleged member of the Gangster Disciples, was transferred to protective custody as well. Other inmates began informing Miller that Grandberry was looking for him, and eventually, a fight ensued over Grandberry stealing Miller’s book. Miller did not inform prison officials of these issues. During the fight, Grandberry punched Miller several times and ruptured his eardrum. After being transferred to another dorm, Miller was again attacked by multiple gang-affiliated inmates. Thereafter, Miller was transferred to the general population. He filed suit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their failure to protect him from other inmates constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials, finding that their conduct did not amount to a deliberate indifference to Miller’s safety.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Coffey, Ripple, Wood, J.J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.