## Facts

- Larry M. Billups, a Michigan state prisoner and member of the Melanic Islamic Palace of the Rising Sun, was transferred from Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) to the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM) after being implicated in an assault and robbery of his roommate, Morris Barlow.
- Woods (Billups’s mother, suing on his behalf) alleged the Barlow incident triggered a gang “hit contract” against Billups by Melanic leadership.
- Ten days after arriving at SPSM, Billups was attacked while returning from breakfast and was fatally stabbed in the neck by other prisoners identified as Melanic members using a prison-made knife.
- Woods pursued § 1983 claims for failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment against two remaining defendants:
  - Art Tessmer, KCF Deputy Warden of Security, for allegedly failing to communicate a specific, known threat to SPSM during the transfer process.
  - John Jabe, SPSM Warden, for allegedly failing to protect Billups in the face of violent, gang-related conditions at SPSM.
- Woods presented expert testimony from a former prison official (Dr. Mintzes) concerning prison practices and risk; the trial court restricted the expert from using or defining the legal phrase “deliberately indifferent.”
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to Tessmer and Jabe at the close of Woods’s proofs, and Woods appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to Woods, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Tessmer deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Billups by failing to convey a specific gang-related threat upon transfer.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Jabe deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Billups based on SPSM’s violent conditions and gang activity.
3. Whether limiting the expert’s use/definition of “deliberately indifferent” improperly constrained admissible expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Decision

- The court reversed the JMOL for Tessmer and remanded, holding the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Tessmer knew of and disregarded a specific, serious risk to Billups tied to the alleged hit contract.
- The court affirmed the JMOL for Jabe, holding generalized evidence of prison violence did not show Jabe’s subjective awareness of a specific threat to Billups.
- The court held it was proper to bar an expert from defining “deliberately indifferent” or stating the ultimate legal conclusion, while allowing testimony on prison practices and facts relevant to the deliberate-indifference inquiry.

## Legal Principles

- An Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires proof of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, with:
  - an objective component (a sufficiently serious risk), and
  - a subjective component (the official actually knew of and disregarded the excessive risk).
- Subjective knowledge generally cannot be established by evidence of dangerous conditions alone; liability turns on awareness of facts showing a substantial risk to the inmate and conscious disregard of that risk.
- JMOL is appropriate only when, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, no reasonable jury could find for that party.
- Under Rules 702–704, experts may explain professional standards and practices and provide factual predicates relevant to the jury’s determination, but may not define governing legal standards or instruct the jury to reach a legal conclusion.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a plaintiff may reach a jury on a failure-to-protect claim where evidence supports an inference that an official knew of a particularized, gang-based threat and failed to act reasonably, but affirmed that a prison administrator’s general awareness of violence is insufficient without proof of subjective knowledge of a specific risk to the inmate.


Woods v. Lecureux, 110 F.3d 1215 (6th Cir. 1997)