Key Points

  • The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment granting qualified immunity to five Georgia corrections officials sued over the 2021 stabbing death of inmate Jamari McClinton at Baldwin State Prison.
  • Applying the en banc decision in Wade v. McDade, the panel required proof that each official actually knew his or her own conduct put McClinton at substantial risk of serious harm.
  • The Phillips warden who knew of the gang threat responded reasonably by placing McClinton in protective custody and seeking a transfer, and the central-office analyst saw no indication of risk at the receiving prison.
  • The Baldwin warden and intake counselor had no knowledge of the risk, and the court held that the plaintiffs' duty-based theories improperly invoked a negligence standard.
  • A withdrawn, unexplained request for protective custody did not show that the Baldwin lieutenant knew returning McClinton to his dorm endangered him.

A federal appeals court, in a revised opinion issued Friday, ruled that five Georgia corrections officials cannot be held personally liable for the 2021 killing of an inmate who was stabbed to death by a Bloods gang member days after he was moved from protective custody at one prison into the general population of another. The court held that none of the officials actually knew that his or her own conduct put the inmate in danger.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officials, who had been sued by the parents and estate of Jamari McClinton under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Circuit Judge Branch wrote the published opinion for the panel, which also included Circuit Judge Luck and U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger of the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

The ruling applies the Eleventh Circuit's 2024 en banc decision in Wade v. McDade, which requires a prisoner claiming "deliberate indifference" to show that an official acted with "subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law." Taking the officials one at a time, the panel found that those who knew of the threat to McClinton had no reason to think the transfer created a new one, and those at the receiving prison never learned of it. Each was therefore entitled to qualified immunity, which protects officials from personal liability unless their conduct violated clearly established rights.

According to the opinion, McClinton stabbed Michael Johnson, a high-ranking member of the Bloods, on April 19, 2021, while both were held at Phillips State Prison. Warden James Perry placed McClinton in protective custody and requested his transfer. The request stated, "He cannot come out on the compound because of a known enemy," and identified Johnson by name.

Eladio Abreu, a classification analyst in the Georgia Department of Corrections' central office, approved a transfer to Baldwin State Prison, which had the mental health services McClinton needed. Abreu also believed the move would let McClinton leave protective custody. McClinton arrived at Baldwin on Aug. 6, 2021, and was placed in a general population dorm. During his intake interview with counselor Jarvis Primus, he raised no safety concerns, and Primus was not told about his protective custody at Phillips.

On Aug. 9 or 10, McClinton pushed past corrections officer Krystle Milner, who testified that he said, "I got to get out of the dorm. I did something to an offender at another institution, and we're in the same dorm together." Milner did not pass that explanation to her supervisor, Lt. Nolita Moss. McClinton asked Moss for protective custody without saying why, then withdrew the request the same day. Moss let him return to his dorm, and on Aug. 11 he was stabbed to death by an inmate whom an incident report identified as a Bloods member. Baldwin's warden, Walter Berry, had no interactions with McClinton.

McClinton's parents, Ricardo McClinton and Doris Jones, sued Berry and Primus in March 2022, and the case was stayed while criminal proceedings against the alleged killer went forward. In April 2024 they added Perry, Abreu and Moss as defendants, along with claims on behalf of the estate. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed the parents' own claims against the three new defendants as time-barred, then granted summary judgment to all five on qualified immunity grounds.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court had misconstrued Wade and applied a stricter standard than Wade and the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Farmer v. Brennan require. The panel affirmed. Judge Branch wrote that under Wade, "the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant actually knew that his conduct—his own acts or omissions—put the plaintiff at substantial risk of serious harm." The panel noted that no one disputed that housing McClinton alongside Bloods members posed an objectively serious risk.

Perry knew of the danger, the court said, but he "responded reasonably to that known risk by placing McClinton in protective custody and seeking a transfer." The plaintiffs argued that Perry should have alerted Baldwin's warden. The panel answered that they cited no case establishing such a duty and that, even if he breached one, "such a showing of negligence is not enough." As for Abreu, the transfer request he reviewed showed a risk at Phillips "without any mention that he may face a risk once he was transferred elsewhere," and the plaintiffs had conceded that he lacked knowledge of any danger at Baldwin.

The claims against Berry and Primus failed for a simpler reason. "It is undisputed that Berry had no knowledge of McClinton at all, let alone of any substantial risk he faced of retaliation," Judge Branch wrote. The plaintiffs had argued that Berry should have informed himself of the risks and that Primus conducted a deficient intake interview. The panel held that both theories invoked a negligence standard, and it called Primus's theory "out of place in the deliberate indifference context."

Moss knew McClinton had asked for protective custody. The plaintiffs argued that she failed to investigate or protect him, an argument the court said "stretches the evidence beyond what it will support." Without evidence that Moss knew of a particular risk, Judge Branch wrote, "we cannot infer from a withdrawn request for protective custody that Moss knew that returning McClinton to his dorm placed him in harm's way." The panel added that the evidence "plainly shows that she did not subjectively believe that he was in serious danger."

Because the merits ruling disposed of every claim, the panel did not decide whether the parents' claims against Perry, Abreu and Moss were time-barred. It denied as moot the parents' motion to certify that limitations question to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The affirmance leaves in place the district court's judgment for all five officials.