Griffin v. Coombe

Second Circuit

Griffin v. Coombe

23 F. App'x 51

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

DocketDocket No. 01-0100

StatusPublished

This text of 23 F. App'x 51 (Griffin v. Coombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin v. Coombe, 23 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[52]*52Plaintiff-Appellant Frederick Griffin, appearing pro se in forma pauperis and currently incarcerated, appeals from the grant of summary judgment dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Norman A. Mordue, Judge.

The district court granted summary judgment, finding that Griffin had failed to produce evidence of anything other than negligence on the part of prison officials. This Court reviews summary judgment orders de novo. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999).

Because we agree that although Griffin was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, he did not produce any evidence that could support a finding of the deliberate indifference required to establish a § 1983 claim for an Eighth Amendment violation by any of the identified defendants, we affirm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)(requiring proof of “a sufficiently culpable state of mind”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (requiring “deliberate indifference”); Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189, 194 (2d Cir.1995) (requiring personal involvement of supervisory officials).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[52]*52Plaintiff-Appellant Frederick Griffin, appearing pro se in forma pauperis and currently incarcerated, appeals from the grant of summary judgment dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Norman A. Mordue, Judge.

The district court granted summary judgment, finding that Griffin had failed to produce evidence of anything other than negligence on the part of prison officials. This Court reviews summary judgment orders de novo. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mazzola, 175 F.3d 255, 258 (2d Cir.1999).

Because we agree that although Griffin was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, he did not produce any evidence that could support a finding of the deliberate indifference required to establish a § 1983 claim for an Eighth Amendment violation by any of the identified defendants, we affirm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)(requiring proof of “a sufficiently culpable state of mind”); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (requiring “deliberate indifference”); Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189, 194 (2d Cir.1995) (requiring personal involvement of supervisory officials).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. App'x 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-coombe-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack