## Facts

- Paul Eugene Miller, an Indiana state prisoner, reported threats from inmates affiliated with the Gangster Disciples and requested protective custody, including a single cell.
- Prison officials placed Miller in protective custody but did not provide a single cell due to lack of availability.
- Months later, an inmate Miller identified as a gang member (Grandberry) was also housed in protective custody; Miller heard rumors that Grandberry was “looking for him” but did not alert staff or request additional measures.
- Miller and Grandberry fought after a dispute over a stolen book; Grandberry struck Miller, causing injuries including a ruptured eardrum.
- After the fight, Miller was moved to a different housing area and later was assaulted by multiple inmates he alleged were affiliated with the same gang.
- Miller was eventually housed in general population, which he claimed increased his exposure to gang-related violence.
- Miller filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) Eighth Amendment failure to protect based on deliberate indifference and (b) related constitutional challenges to housing and transfer decisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and Miller appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Miller in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where Miller asserted officials failed to protect him from gang-related assaults and made unsafe housing/transfer decisions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the prison officials.
- The court held that Miller failed to produce evidence that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a known, substantial risk to his safety.
- The court concluded officials responded to the threats Miller reported by placing him in protective custody, and the inability to provide a single cell did not establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
- The court found no triable showing that officials had specific notice of an imminent threat from Grandberry before the initial assault.

## Legal Principles

- An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires proof of (1) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm and (2) subjective deliberate indifference—actual knowledge of the risk and disregard of it.
- Reasonable responsive measures to reported threats (including placement in protective custody) defeat deliberate-indifference liability even if harm later occurs.
- Absent evidence that officials were informed of a specific, particularized danger, serious injuries alone do not establish deliberate indifference.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record does not create a genuine dispute that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate safety.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the defendants because the record showed protective action in response to reported threats and lacked evidence that officials had actual knowledge of a specific, imminent risk that they then disregarded, defeating the deliberate-indifference element required for Eighth Amendment liability.


Miller v. McBride, 64 F. App’x 558 (7th Cir. 2003)