Daniel F. Duane v. Michael P. Lane, James Thieret, Warden, James Buch and Daniel Cowen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prisoner who merely establishes negligence but does not show actual knowledge of the danger cannot prevail
• holding that deliberate indifference is a high standard, and is “something approaching a total unconcern for a prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks,” or a “conscious, culpable refusal” to prevent harm
• holding that deliberate indifference is a high standard and is “something approaching a total unconcern for a prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks” or a “conscious, culpable refusal” to prevent harm
• describing the duty to protect inmates from each other as “a recognized constitutional duty”
• no cognizable Eighth Amendment claim where prisoner “makes no allegations whatsoever that speak to the [prison officials’] mental states with regard to his medical care”
• no cognizable Eighth Amendment claim where prisoner \makes no allegations whatsoever that speak to the [prison officials'] mental states with regard to his medical care\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).