Donald Robin Leach v. T. DREW, Correctional Officer;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD ROBIN LEACH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
T. DREW, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
LOWE, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.
No. 08-15692
DC No. CV 00-6139 LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2010**
San Francisco, California
FILED
JUN 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief United States District Judge,***
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
-2-
Before: TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, District Judge.***
Appellants Carey, Drew, Schroeder, and Haws (collectively, “Appellants”)
appeal for the second time the district court’s denial of their motion for summary
judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. Appellee, California inmate Donald
R. Leach (“Leach”), alleges that Appellants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they
failed to protect him after they were forewarned that he was the target of an
imminent assault.
Our review of the district court’s order is limited to a single question:
whether Leach’s Eight Amendment rights were clearly established at the time he
was assaulted. We review this question of law de novo, Brooks v. City of Seattle,
599 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The assault on Leach, as well as its prior warning, occurred in August 1999.
As early as June 1994, it was clearly established that “prison officials have a duty .
. . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners,” and that a
prison official violates an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights when the prison
official exhibits deliberate indifference to the inmate’s safety. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994). By 1996, our decisions had made clear that prison

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
officials have a duty to “take reasonable measures to protect inmates from violence
at the hands of other prisoners.” Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862, 866 (9th Cir.
2001). These and other cases had established that the failure of a prison official to
respond to a known, credible threat to an inmate’s safety constituted a violation of
the inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460-
61 (9th Cir. 1986).
Appellants were explicitly warned that an assault on Leach was imminent,
and there are facts in the record upon which a reasonable jury may find that the
warning was credible. The guards did not protect Leach; they neither placed him
in administrative segregation nor warned him of the threat to his life. See 15 Cal.
Code Reg. § 3335(a) (mandating immediate administrative segregation when an
inmate’s safety is threatened); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 744 (2002) (relying in
part on Alabama Department of Corrections regulation to conclude that use of
“hitching post” violated an inmate’s clearly established Eighth Amendment rights).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Leach, Appellants received
credible information about a serious and immediate threat to Leach’s safety but
took no meaningful steps to address it. A reasonable officer would have
understood that delaying a response to the threat would constitute deliberate

-- 3 of 4 --

Appellants contend that they were unsure whether the informant was1
reliable. The reliability of the informant, however, is a controverted issue of fact
that we cannot review on this interlocutory appeal. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d
895, 903 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
-4-
indifference. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Appellants’ motion1
for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --