42 USC § 1983; Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim based on a prison official’s failure to protect; Farmer v. Brennan; Qualified immunity; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendant-prison counselor (West) was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff-Reedy’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim where there was insufficient evidence that West failed to take measures to protect Reedy from assault at the hands of his prison cellmate (H). Reedy, a former prisoner of the MDOC, sued West and others under § 1983 after H used a rock to beat him while he was sleeping. West moved for qualified immunity, but the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying the motion. The district court rejected the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted West summary judgment based on insufficient evidence. The court first concluded that Reedy failed to establish the objective prong of a failure-to-protect claim where he could not show that he was “‘incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.’” The court noted that he admitted he and H had a mostly good relationship, and that H had no violent criminal history or record of prison violence. It held that the visit the two cellmates made to West’s office to request a separation was insufficient to establish an objective, “‘substantial risk of serious harm.’” The court also determined that the subjective element of a failure-to protect claim was not met were Reedy failed to show that West was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. West was not assigned to Reedy, and the court held that the two one-minute conversations he had with Reedy did not create “‘enough personal contact with [Reedy] to be subjectively aware’ of any risk [H] posed to his safety.” It further found that H’s demand to have Reedy removed from his cell or he would “do what he’s got to do” was insufficient where “‘threats between inmates are common and do not, under all circumstances, serve to impute actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm.’” West believed that they were merely “two adult inmates with cohabitation issues to overcome.” Affirmed.