Erwin v. Jackson

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 plaintiff must show “more than a conclusory claim of being afraid” that other inmates might harm him after discovering his status as a sex offender in order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation
• “Accordingly, we will review plaintiffs’ claims under the Eighth Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
• explaining that an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect requires an inmate to “show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” and that the prison official “is deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety
• stating, “where constitutional protection is afforded under specific constitutional provisions, alleged violations of the protection should be analyzed under those provisions and not under the more generalized provisions of substantive due process.”
• mere fact a prisoner is a convicted sexual offender does not mean that he has “psychological disorders” or that he needs “psychiatric treatment”
• “Where constitutional protection is afforded under specific constitutional provisions, alleged violations of the protection should be analyzed under those provisions and not under the more generalized provisions of substantive due process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).