Action under 42 USC § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for failing to protect an inmate from overdosing; The “objective component” of a failure-to-protect claim; Zakora v Chrisman; The “subjective component” of a failure-to-protect claim; Claims under Monell v. Department of Soc Servs; Whether the district court violated FedRCivP 12(d)

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff-estate’s Eighth Amendment “failure-to-protect” claim arising from the decedent’s (Caraway) overdose while incarcerated in the correctional facility (Whiteville) operated by defendant-CoreCivic. The court held that the estate’s complaint failed to allege that Caraway faced an objectively excessive risk of harm from unfettered access to drugs because CoreCivic’s understaffing caused drugs to proliferate at its facility. Caraway died from a fentanyl overdose. The estate’s theory was that to save money, CoreCivic deliberately understaffed the facility, and improperly screened new hires who smuggled in drugs. It asserted “the individual defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Caraway by understaffing Whiteville” and the corporate defendants were “liable because understaffing was a matter of company policy.” The court first held that the estate failed to meet the “objective component” of a failure-to-protect claim. It dealt with a similar claim in Zakora, where it found this component was met because “factual allegations permitted the reasonable inference that Zakora had ‘unfettered access to deadly drugs’ in prison, creating an objectively excessive risk of overdose.” But the court noted the circumstances in Zakora were egregious, and it found that only “one of the three key facts which made that case extraordinary is even arguably present here.” It did not have to decide whether the estate’s allegation that “the prison was ‘plagued by rampant drugs’ entering the facility” was sufficient to plausibly allege the widespread presence of drugs in Whiteville because the estate “failed to allege Zakora’s two other key facts” (immediately prior overdoses and prison officials’ failure to investigate). In a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim, “the plaintiff must show that the defendants’ unconstitutional act or omission failed to alleviate the excessive risk he faced.” The estate failed to do so. The complaint only made “generalized allegations that Whiteville’s understaffing ‘led to’ rampant drug use, apparently in part because officials couldn’t perform adequate head counts and inspections. That kind of conclusory statement,” without factual support, did not receive any presumption of truth. While the failure as to the objective component was by itself fatal to the Eighth Amendment claim, the court also held that the estate failed to establish the subjective component. It did not “sufficiently allege that the defendants knew of a drug problem at Whiteville” and failed to reasonably respond. Further, because the complaint did not allege a constitutional violation, the Monell claims against the corporate defendants likewise failed. Finally, the court rejected the estate’s assertion that the district court violated Rule 12(d).