Young v. Selk

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that officers were aware of the substantial risk that an inmate faced from a “dangerous man who was particularly volatile” when the inmate informed the officers about receiving threats from the man, but they had ignored that risk
• explaining that prisoner’s immediate request to be separated from threatening cellmate was evidence of substantial risk
• concluding summary judgment was not proper where the plaintiff told officials of an inmate’s threat, of the urgent circumstances, and of his need to be moved immediately
• concluding summaiy judgment was not proper where the plaintiff told officials of an .inmate’s threat, of the urgent circumstances, and of his need to be moved immediately
• upholding the denial of qualified immunity to guards who ignored an inmate’s request to be protected from his new cellmate, who then attacked him
• explaining that inmate who assaulted plaintiff posed a substantial risk of serious harm because the inmate was “particularly volatile…was easily offended and enraged, and that he was willing to attack…when in a state of rage”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).