Bishop v. Hackel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court erred by failing to evaluate the liability of each defendant individually
• finding that a plaintiff “suffering from severe mental illness” was objectively at risk when housed with a “predatory” cellmate
• holding that plaintiffs failed to make out a triable issue of fact as to whether an officer exhibited deliberate indifference in part because the officer who had worked in the jail health unit did not ‘hear any complaints or conversations or arguments’”
• stating that the plaintiff must establish “knowledge of a risk to his safety because of his status as a vulnerable inmate and [the assaulter’s] status as a predatory inmate”
• analyzing whether there was an objectively substantial risk of harm to the inmate before (4:24CV2141) the injury occurred without regard to the injury incurred
• analyzing whether there was an objectively substantial risk of harm to the inmate before the injury occurred without regard to the injury incurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).