Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that 6 Eighth Amendment “has been interpreted to include a duty to protect prisoners.”
• finding no Eighth Amendment 10 violation where inmate objected to a particular cellmate but “provided no specifics” as to 11 the risk posed prior to his attack
• noting that “‘[t]he number of gang members housed . . . and the high representation of certain gangs would place an unmanageable burden on prison administrators were they required to separate inmates by gangs’” (quoting Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2001
• finding no deliberate indifference where an inmate protested his cellmate assignment but did not disclose a specific threat, and no other facts supported drawing an inference of a substantial risk to him
• setting forth requirements to show violation of Eighth Amendment duty to protect prisoners
• prison officials have a duty “to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates, 10 which has been interpreted to include a duty to protect prisoners

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).