Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his physical safety by failing to protect him from known gang violence at prison. Plaintiff failed to contest qualified immunity claim made by two defendants. Moreover, Dist. Ct. appropriately entered summary judgment in favor of two other defendants, where record showed that: (1) said defendants, who were supervisors, were unaware of plaintiff’s history of being assaulted by gang member prisoners; and (2) plaintiff could not otherwise establish claim that supervisors were liable based on allegations that conditions at prison were generally unsafe, since plaintiff could only present evidence of isolated incidents of violence. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting summary judgment motion by filed by one defendant, where record showed that said defendant had knowledge of gang activity at prison, as well as knowledge of initial attack of plaintiff by gang members and plaintiff’s articulated fear that he would be attacked in retaliation by same gang members, who shortly thereafter effectuated said attack. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s complaints lacked sufficient details regarding threats posed by specific prisoner(s).
