## Facts

- Shawn Giroux was incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail in September 1995.
- Inmate Robert Tucker threatened Giroux after learning Giroux was meeting with a detective; Giroux was later moved to a different cell, with evidence supporting an inference the move related to the threat.
- The next day, Robert Tucker threatened Giroux again while Giroux was being escorted, and Robert’s brother, Scott Tucker, made a veiled threat during breakfast.
- After breakfast, Scott Tucker and associated inmates passed Giroux’s cell and told him, “you’re dead.”
- Giroux reported these threats to Sergeant Hartley (the shift supervisor), stated he feared Robert and Scott Tucker, and requested protective custody; Hartley said he would “see what [he] could do” and “take care of it.”
- No protective measures were taken to separate Giroux from the Tuckers or otherwise reduce the risk.
- On September 21, 1995, Robert Tucker attacked Giroux as Giroux returned from the shower area, causing injuries including a broken nose.
- Giroux brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect (Eighth Amendment) against Hartley, Sheriff Barry DeLong, and Somerset County, and asserted related state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find Sergeant Hartley deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Giroux after receiving Giroux’s report of specific threats and request for protective custody.
2. Whether Sheriff DeLong and Somerset County could face § 1983 liability based on policies, customs, or failures in training/supervision that allegedly caused or contributed to the failure to protect.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper because disputed inferences about knowledge, risk, causation, and policy adequacy had to be resolved in Giroux’s favor.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed summary judgment for all defendants on the § 1983 claims and remanded.
- The record, viewed favorably to Giroux, permitted a jury finding that Giroux faced a substantial risk of serious harm and that Hartley knew of and disregarded that risk by taking no reasonable protective steps.
- The record also permitted a jury finding of causation because the assault followed shortly after the reported threats and the lack of protective action.
- The court held it was error to remove from the jury questions concerning the adequacy of jail policies, training, and supervision and potential liability of Sheriff DeLong and Somerset County.
- Because the federal claims were reinstated, the related state-law claims were not properly dismissed at that stage.

## Legal Principles

- Jail officials have an Eighth Amendment duty to take reasonable measures to protect inmates from violence by other inmates.
- A failure-to-protect claim requires (1) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm and (2) subjective deliberate indifference: the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate safety.
- Specific, repeated threats combined with an inmate’s direct request for protection can support an inference of an official’s subjective awareness of a substantial risk.
- Doing nothing in the face of known, specific threats can support a finding of deliberate indifference if reasonable protective measures were available.
- At summary judgment, courts must not weigh credibility or draw contested inferences against the nonmoving party on disputed questions of knowledge, risk, causation, or policy adequacy.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that the summary-judgment record could support findings that a jail supervisor ignored a reported, escalating threat of inmate violence and that county-level policies or supervision may have contributed, requiring trial-level factfinding rather than dismissal.


Giroux v. Somerset Cnty., 178 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999)