Josef Fischl v. David Armitage, Corrections Sergeant, and S.A. Marshall, Corrections Officer, in Their Individual Capacities

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that assessments of credibility, choosing between “conflicting versions of the events,” and “the weighing of evidence are matters for the jury, not for the court”
• noting that prison officials have a duty, under the Eighth Amendment, \'to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates'\ (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833)
• noting that prison officials have a duty, under the Eighth Amendment, “‘to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates’” (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833)
• applying Rule 801(d)(2)(E) to admit a coconspirator’s statement against correctional officers at the summary judgment stage of a Section 1983 conspiracy case
• finding a genuine issue of material fact existed where plaintiff alleged corrections officers had intentionally left an inmate’s cell door unlocked
• finding evidence that defendant was in the' vicinity of the attack on plaintiff and did nothing to stop it sufficient to show defendant’s personal involvement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).