FARMER v. BRENNAN, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 06/06/1994)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


[2] No. 92-7247


[3] 527 U.S. 825, 62 U.S.L.W. 4446, 1994.SCT


[4] decided: June 6, 1994.


[5] DEE FARMER, PETITIONER
v.
EDWARD BRENNAN, WARDEN, ET AL.


[6] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.


[7] Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Blackmun, Stevens, O'connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., and Stevens, J., filed concurring opinions. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.


[8] Author: Souter


[9] JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.


[10] A prison official's "deliberate indifference" to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney 509 U.S. (1993); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). This case requires us to define the term "deliberate indifference," as we do by requiring a showing that the official was subjectively aware of the risk.


[11] I


[12] The dispute before us stems from a civil suit brought by petitioner, Dee Farmer, alleging that respondents, federal prison officials, violated the Eighth Amendment by their deliberate indifference to petitioner's safety. Petitioner, who is serving a federal sentence for credit card fraud, has been diagnosed by medical personnel of the Bureau of Prisons as a transsexual, one who has "[a] rare psychiatric disorder in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex," and who typically seeks medical treatment, including hormonal therapy and surgery, to bring about a permanent sex change. American Medical Association, Encyclopedia of Medicine 1006 (1989); see also American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 74-75 (3d rev. ed. 1987). For several years before being convicted and sentenced in 1986 at the age of 18, petitioner, who is biologically male, wore women's clothing (as petitioner did at the 1986 trial), underwent estrogen therapy, received silicone breast implants, and submitted to unsuccessful "black market" testicle-removal surgery. See Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 320 (CA7 1993). Petitioner's precise appearance in prison is unclear from the record before us, but petitioner claims to have continued hormonal treatment while incarcerated by using drugs smuggled into prison, and apparently wears clothing in a feminine manner, as by displaying a shirt "off one shoulder," App. 112. The parties agree that petitioner "projects feminine characteristics." Id., at 51, 74.


[13] The practice of federal prison authorities is to incarcerate preoperative transsexuals with prisoners of like biological sex, see Farmer v. Haas, supra, at 320, and over time authorities housed petitioner in several federal facilities, sometimes in the general male prison population but more often in segregation. While there is no dispute that petitioner was segregated at least several times because of violations of prison rules, neither is it disputed that in at least one penitentiary petitioner was segregated because of safety concerns. See Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335, 1342 (MD Pa. 1988).


[14] On March 9, 1989, petitioner was transferred for disciplinary reasons from the Federal Correctional Institute in Oxford, Wisconsin (FCI-Oxford), to the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana (USP-Terre Haute). Though the record before us is unclear about the security designations of the two prisons in 1989, penitentiaries are typically higher security facilities that house more troublesome prisoners than federal correctional institutes. See generally Federal Bureau of Prisons, Facilities 1990. After an initial stay in administrative segregation, petitioner was placed in the USP-Terre Haute general population. Petitioner voiced no objection to any prison official about the transfer to the penitentiary or to placement in its general population. Within two weeks, according to petitioner's allegations, petitioner was beaten and raped by another inmate in petitioner's cell. Several days later, after petitioner claims to have reported the incident, officials returned petitioner to segregation to await, according to respondents, a hearing about petitioner's HIV-positive status.


[15] Acting without counsel, petitioner then filed a Bivens complaint, alleging a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 64 L. Ed. 2d 15, 100 S. Ct. 1468 (1980). As defendants, petitioner named respondents: the warden of USP-Terre Haute and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (sued only in their official capacities); the warden of FCI-Oxford and a case manager there; and the director of the Bureau of Prisons North Central Region Office and an official in that office (sued in their official and personal capacities). As later amended, the complaint alleged that respondents either transferred petitioner to USP-Terre Haute or placed petitioner in its general population despite knowledge that the penitentiary had a violent environment and a history of inmate assaults, and despite knowledge that petitioner, as a transsexual who "projects feminine characteristics," would be particularly vulnerable to sexual attack by some USP-Terre Haute inmates. This allegedly amounted to a deliberately indifferent failure to protect petitioner's safety, and thus to a violation of petitioner's Eighth Amendment rights. Petitioner sought compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction barring future confinement in any penitentiary, including USP-Terre Haute.*fn1


[16] Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment supported by several affidavits, to which petitioner responded with an opposing affidavit and a cross-motion for summary judgment; petitioner also invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), asking the court to delay its ruling until respondents had complied with petitioner's pending request for production of documents. Respondents then moved for a protective order staying discovery until resolution of the issue of qualified immunity, raised in respondents' summary judgment motion.


[17] Without ruling on respondents' request to stay discovery, the District Court denied petitioner's Rule 56(f) motion and granted summary judgment to respondents, concluding that there had been no deliberate indifference to petitioner's safety. The failure of prison officials to prevent inmate assaults violates the Eighth Amendment, the court stated, only if prison officials were "reckless in a criminal sense," meaning that they had "actual knowledge" of a potential danger. App. 124. Respondents, however, lacked the requisite knowledge, the court found. "[Petitioner] never expressed any concern for his safety to any of [respondents]. Since [respondents] had no knowledge of any potential danger to [petitioner], they were not deliberately indifferent to his safety." Ibid.


[18] The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit summarily affirmed without opinion. We granted certiorari, 510 U.S. (1993), because Courts of Appeals had adopted inconsistent tests for "deliberate indifference." Compare, for example, McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344, 348 (CA7 1991) (holding that "deliberate indifference" requires a "subjective standard of recklessness"), cert. denied, 503 U.S. (1992), with Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 360-361 (CA3 1992) ("[A] prison official is deliberately indifferent when he knows or should have known of a sufficiently serious danger to an inmate").


[19] II


[20] A


[21] The Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons," Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981), but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that "the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment." Helling, 509 U.S., at (slip op., at 5). In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments," the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive physical force against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992). The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, and must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates," Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-527, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984). See Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 5); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 225, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990); Estelle, 429 U.S., at 103. Cf. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 198-199, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989).


[22] In particular, as the lower courts have uniformly held, and as we have assumed, "prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (CA1) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823 (1988);*fn2 see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S., at 303 (describing "the protection [an inmate] is afforded against other inmates" as a "condition of confinement" subject to the strictures of the Eighth Amendment). Having incarcerated "persons [with] demonstrated proclivities for antisocial criminal, and often violent, conduct," Hudson v. Palmer, supra, at 526, having stripped them of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course. Cf. DeShaney, supra, at 199-200; Estelle, supra, at 103-104. Prison conditions may be "restrictive and even harsh," Rhodes, supra, at 347, but gratuitously allowing the beating or rape of one prisoner by another serves no "legitimate penological objective," Hudson v. Palmer, supra, at 548 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), any more than it squares with "'evolving standards of decency,'" Estelle, supra, at 102 (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630, 78 S. Ct. 590 (1958) (plurality opinion)). Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not "part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Rhodes, supra, at 347.


[23] It is not, however, every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another that translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety. Our cases have held that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, "sufficiently serious," Wilson, supra, at 298; see also Hudson v. McMillian, supra, at (slip op., at 5); a prison official's act or omission must result in the denial of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities," Rhodes, supra, at 347. For a claim (like the one here) based on a failure to prevent harm, the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm. See Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 8).*fn3


[24] The second requirement follows from the principle that "only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment." Wilson, 501 U.S., at 297 (internal quotation marks, emphasis and citations omitted). To violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a prison official must have a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Ibid.; see also id., at 302-303; Hudson v. McMillian, supra, at (slip op., at 5). In prison-conditions cases that state of mind is one of "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety, Wilson, supra, at 302-303; see also Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6-7); Hudson v. McMillian, supra, at (slip op., at 5); Estelle, supra, at 106, a standard the parties agree governs the claim in this case. The parties disagree, however, on the proper test for deliberate indifference, which we must therefore undertake to define.


[25] B


[26] 1


[27] Although we have never paused to explain the meaning of the term "deliberate indifference," the case law is instructive. The term first appeared in the United States Reports in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S., at 104, and its use there shows that deliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence. In considering the inmate's claim in Estelle that inadequate prison medical care violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, we distinguished "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners," ibid., from "negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition," id., at 106, holding that only the former violates the Clause. We have since read Estelle for the proposition that Eighth Amendment liability requires "more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's interests or safety." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251, 106 S. Ct. 1078 (1986).


[28] While Estelle establishes that deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence, the cases are also clear that it is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. That point underlies the ruling that "application of the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate" in one class of prison cases: when "officials stand accused of using excessive physical force." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S., at (slipop., at 3-4); see also Whitley, supra, 320. In such situations, where the decisions of prison officials are typically made "'in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance,'" Hudson v. McMillian, supra, at (slip op., at 3) (quoting Whitley, supra, at 320), an Eighth Amendment claimant must show more than "indifference," deliberate or otherwise. The claimant must show that officials applied force "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," 503 U.S., at (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), or, as the Court also put it, that officials used force with "a knowing willingness that [harm] occur," 503 U.S., at (slip op., at 5) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard of purposeful or knowing conduct is not, however, necessary to satisfy the mens rea requirement of deliberate indifference for claims challenging conditions of confinement; "the very high state of mind prescribed by Whitley does not apply to prison conditions cases." Wilson, supra, at 302-303.


[29] With deliberate indifference lying somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other, the Courts of Appeals have routinely equated deliberate indifference with recklessness.*fn4 See, e.g., LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1535 (CA11 1993); Manarite v. Springfield, 957 F.2d 953, 957 (CA1); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (CA9 1991); McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d at 347; Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851-852 (CA4 1990); Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (CA8 1984); see also Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257, 269, 94 L. Ed. 2d 293, 107 S. Ct. 1114 (1987) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting). It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.


[30] That does not, however, fully answer the pending question about the level of culpability deliberate indifference entails, for the term recklessness is not self-defining. The civil law generally calls a person reckless who acts or (if the person has a duty to act) fails to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known. See Prosser and Keeton § 34, pp. 213-214; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (1965). The criminal law, however, generally permits a finding of recklessness only when a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware. See R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 850-851 (3d ed. 1982); J. Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law 115-116, 120, 128 (2d ed. 1960) (hereinafter Hall); American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(c), and Comment 3 (1985); but see Commonwealth v. Pierce, 138 Mass. 165, 175-178 (1884) (Holmes, J.) (adopting an objective approach to criminal recklessness). The standards proposed by the parties in this case track the two approaches (though the parties do not put it that way): petitioner asks us to define deliberate indifference as what we have called civil-law recklessness,*fn5 and respondents urge us to adopt an approach consistent with recklessness in the criminal law.*fn6


[31] We reject petitioner's invitation to adopt an objective test for deliberate indifference. We hold instead that a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. This approach comports best with the text of the Amendment as our cases have interpreted it. The Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual "conditions"; it outlaws cruel and unusual "punishments." An act or omission unaccompanied by knowledge of a significant risk of harm might well be something society wishes to discourage, and if harm does result society might well wish to assure compensation. The common law reflects such concerns when it imposes tort liability on a purely objective basis. See Prosser and Keeton §§ 2, 34, pp. 6, 213-214; see also Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680; United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 10 L. Ed. 2d 805, 83 S. Ct. 1850 (1963). But an official's failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment.


[32] In Wilson v. Seiter, we rejected a reading of the Eighth Amendment that would allow liability to be imposed on prison officials solely because of the presence of objectively inhumane prison conditions. See 501 U.S. at 299-302. As we explained there, our "cases mandate inquiry into a prison official's state of mind when it is claimed that the official has inflicted cruel and unusual punishment." Id., at 299. Although "state of mind," like "intent," is an ambiguous term that can encompass objectively defined levels of blameworthiness, see 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §§ 3.4, 3.5, pp. 296-300, 313-314 (1986) (hereinafter LaFave & Scott); United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575, 100 S. Ct. 624 (1980), it was no accident that we said in Wilson and repeated in later cases that Eighth Amendment suits against prison officials must satisfy a "subjective" requirement. See Wilson, supra, at 298; see also Helling, 509 U.S., at (slip op., at 9); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S., at (slip op., at 4-5). It is true, as petitioner points out, that Wilson cited with approval Court of Appeals decisions applying an objective test for deliberate indifference to claims based on prison officials' failure to prevent inmate assaults. See 501 U.S., at 303 (citing Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d, at 560; and Morgan v. District of Columbia, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 69, 824 F.2d 1049, 1057-1058 (CADC 1987)). But Wilson cited those cases for the proposition that the deliberate-indifference standard applies to all prison-conditions claims, not to undo its holding that the Eighth Amendment has a "subjective component." 501 U.S., at 298. Petitioner's purely objective test for deliberate indifference is simply incompatible with Wilson 's holding.


[33] To be sure, the reasons for focussing on what a defendant's mental attitude actually was (or is), rather than what it should have been (or should be), differ in the Eighth Amendment context from that of the criminal law. Here, a subjective approach isolates those who inflict punishment; there, it isolates those against whom punishment should be inflicted. But the result is the same: to act recklessly in either setting a person must "consciously disregard" a substantial risk of serious harm. Model Penal Code, supra, § 2.02(2)(c).


[34] At oral argument, the Deputy Solicitor General advised against frank adoption of a criminal-law mens rea requirement, contending that it could encourage triers of fact to find Eighth Amendment liability only if they concluded that prison officials acted like criminals. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 39-40. We think this concern is misdirected. Bivens actions against federal prison officials (and their § 1983 counterparts against state officials) are civil in character, and a court should no more allude to the criminal law when enforcing the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause than when applying the Free Speech and Press Clauses, where we have also adopted a subjective approach to recklessness. See Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688, 105 L. Ed. 2d 562, 109 S. Ct. 2678 (1989) (holding that the standard for "reckless disregard" for the truth in a defamation action by a public figure "is a subjective one," requiring that "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," or that "the defendant actually had a high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).*fn7 That said, subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law is a familiar and workable standard that is consistent with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as interpreted in our cases, and we adopt it as the test for "deliberate indifference" under the Eighth Amendment.


[35] 2


[36] Our decision that Eighth Amendment liability requires consciousness of a risk is thus based on the Constitution and our cases, not merely on a parsing of the phrase "deliberate indifference." And we do not reject petitioner's arguments for a thoroughly objective approach to deliberate indifference without recognizing that on the crucial point (whether a prison official must know of a risk, or whether it suffices that he should know) the term does not speak with certainty. Use of "deliberate," for example, arguably requires nothing more than an act (or omission) of indifference to a serious risk that is voluntary, not accidental. Cf. Estelle, 429 U.S., at 105 (distinguishing "deliberate indifference" from "accident" or "inadvertence"). And even if "deliberate" is better read as implying knowledge of a risk, the concept of constructive knowledge is familiar enough that the term "deliberate indifference" would not, of its own force, preclude a scheme that conclusively presumed awareness from a risk's obviousness.


[37] Because "deliberate indifference" is a judicial gloss, appearing neither in the Constitution nor in a statute, we could not accept petitioner's argument that the test for "deliberate indifference" described in Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412, 109 S. Ct. 1197 (1989), must necessarily govern here. In Canton, interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we held that a municipality can be liable for failure to train its employees when the municipality's failure shows "a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants." 489 U.S., at 389 (internal quotation marks omitted). In speaking to the meaning of the term, we said that "it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Id., at 390; see also id., at 390, n. 10 (elaborating). JUSTICE O'CONNOR's separate opinion for three Justices agreed with the Court's "obviousness" test and observed that liability is appropriate when policymakers are "on actual or constructive notice" of the need to train, id., at 396 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). It would be hard to describe the Canton understanding of deliberate indifference, permitting liability to be premised on obviousness or constructive notice, as anything but objective.


[38] Canton 's objective standard, however, is not an appropriate test for determining the liability of prison officials under the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in our cases. Section 1983, which merely provides a cause of action, "contains no state-of-mind requirement independent of that necessary to state a violation of the underlying constitutional right." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986). And while deliberate indifference serves under the Eighth Amendment to ensure that only inflictions of punishment carry liability, see Wilson, 501 U.S., at 299-300, the "term was used in the Canton case for the quite different purpose of identifying the threshold for holding a city responsible for the constitutional torts committed by its inadequately trained agents," Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. , (1992), a purpose the Canton Court found satisfied by a test permitting liability when a municipality disregards "obvious" needs. Needless to say, moreover, considerable conceptual difficulty would attend any search for the subjective state of mind of a governmental entity, as distinct from that of a governmental official. For these reasons, we cannot accept petitioner's argument that Canton compels the conclusion here that a prison official who was unaware of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate may nevertheless be held liable under the Eighth Amendment if the risk was obvious and a reasonable prison official would have noticed it.


[39] We are no more persuaded by petitioner's argument that, without an objective test for deliberate indifference, prison officials will be free to ignore obvious dangers to inmates. Under the test we adopt today, an Eighth Amendment claimant need not show that a prison official acted or failed to act believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Cf. 1 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 27, p. 141 (14th ed. 1978); Hall 115. We doubt that a subjective approach will present prison officials with any serious motivation "to take refuge in the zone between 'ignorance of obvious risks' and 'actual knowledge of risks.'" Brief for Petitioner 27. Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, cf. Hall 118 (cautioning against "confusing a mental state with the proof of its existence"), and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious. Cf. LaFave & Scott § 3.7, p. 335 ("If the risk is obvious, so that a reasonable man would realize it, we might well infer that [the defendant] did in fact realize it; but the inference cannot be conclusive, for we know that people are not always conscious of what reasonable people would be conscious of"). For example, if an Eighth Amendment plaintiff presents evidence showing that a substantial risk of inmate attacks was "longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information concerning the risk and thus 'must have known' about it, then such evidence could be sufficient to permit a trier of fact to find that the defendant-official had actual knowledge of the risk." Brief for Respondents 22.*fn8


[40] Nor may a prison official escape liability for deliberate indifference by showing that, while he was aware of an obvious, substantial risk to inmate safety, he did not know that the complainant was especially likely to be assaulted by the specific prisoner who eventually committed the assault. The question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial "risk of serious damage to his future health," Helling, 509 U.S., at (slip op., at 9), and it does not matter whether the risk comes from a single source or multiple sources, any more than it matters whether a prisoner faces an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such a risk. See Brief for Respondents 15 (stating that a prisoner can establish exposure to a sufficiently serious risk of harm "by showing that he belongs to an identifiable group of prisoners who are frequently singled out for violent attack by other inmates"). If, for example, prison officials were aware that inmate "rape was so common and uncontrolled that some potential victims dared not sleep [but] instead . . . would leave their beds and spend the night clinging to the bars nearest the guards' station," Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S., 678, 681-682 n. 3, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522, 98 S. Ct. 2565 (1978), it would obviously be irrelevant to liability that the officials could not guess beforehand precisely who would attack whom. Cf. Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6-7) (observing that the Eighth Amendment requires a remedy for exposure of inmates to "infectious maladies" such as hepatitis and venereal disease "even though the possible infection might not affect all of those exposed"); Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902 (1944) (affirming conviction for manslaughter under a law requiring reckless or wanton conduct of a nightclub owner who failed to protect patrons from a fire, even though the owner did not know in advance who would light the match that ignited the fire or which patrons would lose their lives); State v. Julius, 185 W. Va. 422, 431-432, 408 S.E.2d 1, 10-11 (1991) (holding that a defendant may be held criminally liable for injury to an unanticipated victim).


[41] Because, however, prison officials who lacked knowledge of a risk cannot be said to have inflicted punishment, it remains open to the officials to prove that they were unaware even of an obvious risk to inmate health or safety. That a trier of fact may infer knowledge from the obvious, in other words, does not mean that it must do so. Prison officials charged with deliberate indifference might show, for example, that they did not know of the underlying facts indicating a sufficiently substantial danger and that they were therefore unaware of a danger, or that they knew the underlying facts but believed (albeit unsoundly) that the risk to which the facts gave rise was insubstantial or nonexistent.


[42] In addition, prison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted. A prison official's duty under the Eighth Amendment is to ensure "reasonable safety," Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 7); see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S., at 225; Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S., at 526-527, a standard that incorporates due regard for prison officials' "unenviable task of keeping dangerous men in safe custody under humane conditions." Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 193 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J.); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-548, 562, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979). Whether one puts it in terms of duty or deliberate indifference, prison officials who act reasonably cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.


[43] We address, finally, petitioner's argument that a subjective deliberate indifference test will unjustly require prisoners to suffer physical injury before obtaining court-ordered correction of objectively inhumane prison conditions. "It would," indeed, "be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to them." Helling, 509 U.S., at . But nothing in the test we adopt today clashes with that common sense. Petitioner's argument is flawed for the simple reason that "one does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief." Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593, 67 L. Ed. 1117, 43 S. Ct. 658 (1923). Consistently with this principle, a subjective approach to deliberate indifference does not require a prisoner seeking "a remedy for unsafe conditions [to] await a tragic event [such as an] actual assault before obtaining relief." Helling, supra at (slip op., at 7).


[44] In a suit such as petitioner's, insofar as it seeks injunctive relief to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm, "the subjective factor, deliberate indifference, should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitudes and conduct," Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 10): their attitudes and conduct at the time suit is brought and persisting thereafter. An inmate seeking an injunction on the ground that there is "a contemporary violation of a nature likely to continue," United States v. Oregon Medical Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333, 96 L. Ed. 978, 72 S. Ct. 690 (1952), must adequately plead such a violation; to survive summary judgment, he must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant-officials were at the time suit was filed, and are at the time of summary judgment, knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so; and finally to establish eligibility for an injunction, the inmate must demonstrate the continuance of that disregard during the remainder of the litigation and into the future. In so doing, the inmate may rely, in the district court's discretion, on developments that postdate the pleadings and pretrial motions, as the defendants may rely on such developments to establish that the inmate is not entitled to an injunction.*fn9 See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(d); 6A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1504-1510, pp. 177-211 (2d ed. 1990). If the court finds the Eighth Amendment's subjective and objective requirements satisfied, it may grant appropriate injunctive relief. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S., at 685-688 and n. 9 (upholding order designed to halt "an ongoing violation" in prison conditions that included extreme overcrowding, rampant violence, insufficient food, and unsanitary conditions). Of course, a district court should approach issuance of injunctive orders with the usual caution, see Bell v. Wolfish, supra, at 562 (warning courts against becoming "enmeshed in the minutiae of prison conditions"), and may, for example, exercise its discretion if appropriate by giving prison officials time to rectify the situation before issuing an injunction.


[45] That prison officials' "current attitudes and conduct," Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 10), must be assessed in an action for injunctive relief does not mean, of course, that inmates are free to bypass adequate internal prison procedures and bring their health and safety concerns directly to court. "An appeal to the equity jurisdiction conferred on federal district courts is an appeal to the sound discretion which guides the determinations of courts of equity," Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 235, 88 L. Ed. 9, 64 S. Ct. 7 (1943), and any litigant making such an appeal must show that the intervention of equity is required. When a prison inmate seeks injunctive relief, a court need not ignore the inmate's failure to take advantage of adequate prison procedures, and an inmate who needlessly bypasses such procedures may properly be compelled to pursue them. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (authorizing district courts in § 1983 actions to require inmates to exhaust "such plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies as are available"). Even apart from the demands of equity, an inmate would be well advised to take advantage of internal prison procedures for resolving inmate grievances. When those procedures produce results, they will typically do so faster than judicial processes can. And even when they do not bring constitutionally required changes, the inmate's task in court will obviously be much easier.


[46] Accordingly, we reject petitioner's arguments and hold that a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.


[47] III


[48] A


[49] Against this backdrop, we consider whether the District Court's disposition of petitioner's complaint, summarily affirmed without briefing by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, comports with Eighth Amendment principles. We conclude that the appropriate course is to remand.


[50] In granting summary judgment to respondents on the ground that petitioner had failed to satisfy the Eighth Amendment's subjective requirement, the District Court may have placed decisive weight on petitioner's failure to notify respondents of a risk of harm. That petitioner "never expressed any concern for his safety to any of [respondents]," App. 124, was the only evidence the District Court cited for its conclusion that there was no genuine dispute about respondents' assertion that they "had no knowledge of any potential danger to [petitioner]," ibid. But with respect to each of petitioner's claims, for damages and for injunctive relief, the failure to give advance notice is not dispositive. Petitioner may establish respondents' awareness by reliance on any relevant evidence. See supra, at 16.


[51] The summary judgment record does not so clearly establish respondent's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of subjective knowledge that we can simply assume the absence of error below. For example, in papers filed in opposition to respondents' summary-judgment motion, petitioner pointed to respondents' admission that petitioner is a "non-violent" transsexual who, because of petitioner's "youth and feminine appearance" is "likely to experience a great deal of sexual pressure" in prison. App. 50-51, 73-74. And petitioner recounted a statement by one of the respondents, then warden of the penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, who told petitioner that there was "a high probability that [petitioner] could not safely function at USP-Lewisburg," id., at 109, an incident confirmed in a published District Court opinion. See Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp., at 1342; see also ibid. ("Clearly, placing plaintiff, a twenty-one year old transsexual, into the general population at [USP-]Lewisburg, a [high-]security institution, could pose a significant threat to internal security in general and to plaintiff in particular").


[52] We cannot, moreover, be certain that additional evidence is unavailable to petitioner because in denying petitioner's Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery the District Court may have acted on a mistaken belief that petitioner's failure to notify was dispositive. Petitioner asserted in papers accompanying the Rule 56(f) motion that the requested documents would show that "each defendant had knowledge that USP-Terre Haute was and is, a violent institution with a history of sexual assault, stabbings, etc., [and that] each defendant showed reckless disregard for my safety by designating me to said institution knowing that I would be sexually assaulted." App. 105-106. But in denying the Rule 56(f) motion, the District Court stated that the requested documents were "not shown by plaintiff to be necessary to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment," App. 121, a statement consistent with the erroneous view that failure to notify was fatal to petitioner's complaint.


[53] Because the District Court may have mistakenly thought that advance notification was a necessary element of an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, we think it proper to remand for reconsideration of petitioner's Rule 56(f) motion and, whether additional discovery is permitted or not, for application of the Eighth Amendment principles explained above.*fn10


[54] B


[55] Respondents urge us to affirm for reasons not relied on below, but neither of their contentions is so clearly correct as to justify affirmance.


[56] With respect to petitioner's damages claim, respondents argue that the officials sued in their individual capacities (officials at FCI-Oxford and the Bureau of Prisons North Central Region office), were alleged to be liable only for their transfer of petitioner from FCI-Oxford to USP-Terre Haute, whereas petitioner "nowhere alleges any reason for believing that these officials, who had no direct responsibility for administering the Terre Haute institution, would have had knowledge of conditions within that institution regarding danger to transsexual inmates." Brief for Respondents 27-28. But petitioner's Rule 56(f) motion alleged just that. Though respondents suggest here that petitioner offered no factual basis for that assertion, that is not a ground on which they chose to oppose petitioner's Rule 56(f) motion below and, in any event, is a matter for the exercise of the District Court's judgment, not ours. Finally, to the extent respondents seek affirmance here on the ground that officials at FCI-Oxford and the Bureau of Prisons regional office had no power to control prisoner placement at Terre Haute, the record gives at least a suggestion to the contrary; the affidavit of one respondent, the warden of USP-Terre Haute, states that after having been at USP-Terre Haute for about a month petitioner was placed in administrative segregation "pursuant to directive from the North Central Regional Office" and a "request . . . by staff at FCI-Oxford." App. 94-95. Accordingly, though we do not reject respondents' arguments about petitioner's claim for damages, the record does not permit us to accept them as a basis for affirmance when they were not relied upon below. Respondents are free to develop this line of argument on remand.


[57] With respect to petitioner's claim for injunctive relief, respondents argued in their merits brief that the claim was "foreclosed by [petitioner's] assignment to administrative detention status because of his high-risk HIV-positive condition, . . . as well as by the absence of any allegation . . . that administrative detention status poses any continuing threat of physical injury to him." Brief for Respondents 28-29. At oral argument, however, the Deputy Solicitor General informed us that petitioner was no longer in administrative detention, having been placed in the general prison population of a medium-security prison. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-26. He suggested that affirmance was nevertheless proper because "there is no present threat" that petitioner will be placed in a setting where he would face a "continuing threat of physical injury," id., at 26, but this argument turns on facts about the likelihood of a transfer that the District Court is far better placed to evaluate than we are. We leave it to respondents to present this point on remand.


[58] IV


[59] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


[60] So ordered.


[61] Disposition


[62] Vacated and remanded.


[63] JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.


[64] I agree with Justice Stevens that inhumane prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment even if no prison official has an improper, subjective state of mind. This Court's holding in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991), to the effect that barbaric prison conditions may be beyond the reach of the Eighth Amendment if no prison official can be deemed individually culpable, in my view is insupportable in principle and is inconsistent with our precedents interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Whether the Constitution has been violated "should turn on the character of the punishment rather than the motivation of the individual who inflicted it." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 116, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Wilson v. Seiter should be overruled.


[65] Although I do not go along with the Court's reliance on Wilson in defining the "deliberate indifference" standard, I join the Court's opinion, because it creates no new obstacles for prison inmates to overcome, and it sends a clear message to prison officials that their affirmative duty under the Constitution to provide for the safety of inmates is not to be taken lightly. Under the Court's decision today, prison officials may be held liable for failure to remedy a risk so obvious and substantial that the officials must have known about it, see ante, at 16, and prisoners need not "'await a tragic event [such as an] actual assault before obtaining relief,'" ante, at 19.


[66] I


[67] Petitioner is a transsexual who is currently serving a 20-year sentence in an all-male federal prison for credit-card fraud. Although a biological male, petitioner has undergone treatment for silicone breast implants and unsuccessful surgery to have his testicles removed. Despite his overtly feminine characteristics, and his previous segregation at a different federal prison because of safety concerns, see Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335, 1342 (MD Pa. 1988), prison officials at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, housed him in the general population of that maximum-security prison. Less than two weeks later, petitioner was brutally beaten and raped by another inmate in petitioner's cell.


[68] Homosexual rape or other violence among prison inmates serves absolutely no penological purpose. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345-346, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981), citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976) (joint opinion) (the Eighth Amendment prohibits all punishment, physical and mental, which is "totally without penological justification"). "Such brutality is the equivalent of torture, and is offensive to any modern standard of human dignity." United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 423, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575, 100 S. Ct. 624 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). The horrors experienced by many young inmates, particularly those who, like petitioner, are convicted of nonviolent offenses, border on the unimaginable. Prison rape not only threatens the lives of those who fall prey to their aggressors, but is potentially devastating to the human spirit. Shame, depression, and a shattering loss of self-esteem, accompany the perpetual terror the victim thereafter must endure. See Note, Rape in Prison and AIDS: A Challenge for the Eighth Amendment Framework of Wilson v. Seiter, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 1541, 1545 (1992). Unable to fend for himself without the protection of prison officials, the victim finds himself at the mercy of larger, stronger, and ruthless inmates. Although formally sentenced to a term of incarceration, many inmates discover that their punishment, even for nonviolent offenses like credit-card fraud or tax evasion, degenerates into a reign of terror unmitigated by the protection supposedly afforded by prison officials.*fn*


[69] The fact that our prisons are badly overcrowded and understaffed may well explain many of the shortcomings of our penal systems. But our Constitution sets minimal standards governing the administration of punishment in this country, see Rhodes, 452 U.S., at 347, and thus it is no answer to the complaints of the brutalized inmate that the resources are unavailable to protect him from what, in reality, is nothing less than torture. I stated in dissent in United States v. Bailey :


[70] "It is society's responsibility to protect the life and health of its prisoners. 'When a sheriff or a marshall [sic] takes a man from the courthouse in a prison van and transports him to confinement for two or three or ten years, this is our act. We have tolled the bell for him. And whether we like it or not, we have made him our collective responsibility. We are free to do something about him; he is not' (emphasis in original). Address by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, 25 Record of the Assn. of the Bar of the City of New York 14, 17 (Mar. 1970 Supp.)." 444 U.S., at 423.


[71] The Court in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991), held that any pain and suffering endured by a prisoner which is not formally a part of his sentence -- no matter how severe or unnecessary -- will not be held violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause unless the prisoner establishes that some prison official intended the harm. The Court justified this remarkable conclusion by asserting that only pain that is intended by a state actor to be punishment is punishment. See Wilson, 501 U.S., at 300 ("The source of the intent requirement is not the predilections of this Court, but the Eighth Amendment itself, which bans only cruel and unusual punishment. If the pain inflicted is not formally meted out as punishment by the statute or the sentencing judge, some mental element must be attributed to the inflicting officer before it can qualify") (emphasis in original).


[72] The Court's analysis is fundamentally misguided; indeed it defies common sense. "Punishment" does not necessarily imply a culpable state of mind on the part of an identifiable punisher. A prisoner may experience punishment when he suffers "severe, rough, or disastrous treatment," see, e.g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1843 (1961), regardless of whether a state actor intended the cruel treatment to chastise or deter. See also Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language 1736 (1923) (defining punishment as "any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on or suffered by a person because of a crime or evil-doing") (emphasis supplied); cf. Wilson, 501 U.S., at 300, quoting Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 652 (CA7 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 816, 93 L. Ed. 2d 28, 107 S. Ct. 71 (1986) ("'The infliction of punishment is a deliberate act intended to chastise or deter'").


[73] The Court's unduly narrow definition of punishment blinds it to the reality of prison life. Consider, for example, a situation in which one individual is sentenced to a period of confinement at a relatively safe, well-managed prison, complete with tennis courts and cable television, while another is sentenced to a prison characterized by rampant violence and terror. Under such circumstances, it is natural to say that the latter individual was subjected to a more extreme punishment. It matters little that the sentencing judge did not specify to which prison the individuals would be sent; nor is it relevant that the prison officials did not intend either individual to suffer any attack. The conditions of confinement, whatever the reason for them, resulted in differing punishment for the two convicts.


[74] Wilson 's myopic focus on the intentions of prison officials is also mistaken. Where a legislature refuses to fund a prison adequately, the resulting barbaric conditions should not be immune from constitutional scrutiny simply because no prison official acted culpably. Wilson failed to recognize that "state-sanctioned punishment consists not so much of specific acts attributable to individual state officials, but more of a cumulative agglomeration of action (and inaction) on an institutional level." The Supreme Court -- Leading Cases, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 177, 243 (1991). The responsibility for subminimal conditions in any prison inevitably is diffuse, and often borne, at least in part, by the legislature. Yet, regardless of what state actor or institution caused the harm and with what intent, the experience of the inmate is the same. A punishment is simply no less cruel or unusual because its harm is unintended. In view of this obvious fact, there is no reason to believe that, in adopting the Eighth Amendment, the Framers intended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments only when they were inflicted intentionally. As Judge Noonan has observed:


[75] "The Framers were familiar from their wartime experience of British prisons with the kind of cruel punishment administered by a warden with the mentality of a Captain Bligh. But they were also familiar with the cruelty that came from bureaucratic indifference to the conditions of confinement. The Framers understood that cruel and unusual punishment can be administered by the failure of those in charge to give heed to the impact of their actions on those within their care." Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1544 (CA9 1993) (concurring opinion) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).


[76] Before Wilson, it was assumed, if not established, that the conditions of confinement are themselves part of the punishment, even if not specifically "meted out" by a statute or judge. See Wilson, 501 U.S., 294 at 306 at 306-309, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (White, J., concurring), citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522, 98 S. Ct. 2565 (1978); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981). We examined only the objective severity of the conditions of confinement in the pre- Wilson cases, not the subjective intent of government officials, as we found that "an express intent to inflict unnecessary pain is not required. . . . Harsh 'conditions of confinement' may constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless such conditions 'are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'" Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251, 106 S. Ct. 1078 (1986), quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S., at 347 (emphasis added). This initial approach, which employed an objective standard to chart the boundaries of the Eighth Amendment, reflected the practical reality that "intent simply is not very meaningful when considering a challenge to an institution, such as a prison system," Wilson, 501 U.S., at 310 (White, J., concurring). It also, however, demonstrated a commitment to the principles underlying the Eighth Amendment. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was not adopted to protect prison officials with arguably benign intentions from lawsuits. The Eighth Amendment guarantees each prisoner that reasonable measures will be taken to ensure his safety. Where a prisoner can prove that no such reasonable steps were taken and, as a result, he experienced severe pain or suffering without any penological justification, the Eighth Amendment is violated regardless of whether there is an easily identifiable wrongdoer with poor intentions.


[77] II


[78] Though I believe Wilson v. Seiter should be overruled, and disagree with the Court's reliance upon that case in defining the "deliberate indifference" standard, I nonetheless join the Court's opinion. Petitioner never challenged this Court's holding in Wilson or sought reconsideration of the theory upon which that decision is based. More importantly, the Court's opinion does not extend Wilson beyond its ill-conceived boundaries or erect any new obstacles for prison inmates to overcome in seeking to remedy cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. The Court specifically recognizes that "having incarcerated people with demonstrated proclivities for criminally antisocial and, in many cases, violent conduct, [and] having stripped them of virtually every means of self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course." Ante, at 6. The Court further acknowledges that prison rape is not constitutionally tolerable, see ibid. ("being violently assaulted in prison is simply not 'part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society'"), and it clearly states that prisoners can obtain relief before being victimized, see ante, at 19 ("a subjective approach to deliberate indifference does not require a prisoner seeking 'a remedy for unsafe conditions [to] await a tragic event [such as an] actual assault before obtaining relief'"). Finally, under the Court's holding, prison officials may be held liable for failure to remedy a risk of harm so obvious and substantial that the prison officials must have known about it, see ante, at 16. The opinion's clear message is that prison officials must fulfill their affirmative duty under the Constitution to prevent inmate assault, including prison rape, or otherwise face a serious risk of being held liable for damages, see ante, at 15-18, or being required by a court to rectify the hazardous conditions, see ante, at 19-21. As much as is possible within the constraints of Wilson v. Seiter, the Court seeks to ensure that the conditions in our Nation's prisons in fact comport with the "contemporary standard of decency" required by the Eighth Amendment. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 198-200, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989). Short of overruling Wilson v. Seiter, the Court could do no better.


[79] JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring.


[80] While I continue to believe that a state official may inflict cruel and unusual punishment without any improper subjective motivation, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 116-117, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976) (dissenting opinion); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 306-307, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991) (White, J., concurring in judgment), I join JUSTICE SOUTER's thoughtful opinion because it is faithful to our precedents.


[81] JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.


[82] Prisons are necessarily dangerous places; they house society's most antisocial and violent people in close proximity with one another. Regrettably, "some level of brutality and sexual aggression among [prisoners] is inevitable no matter what the guards do . . . unless all prisoners are locked in their cells 24 hours a day and sedated." McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344, 348 (CA7 1991). Today, in an attempt to rectify such unfortunate conditions, the Court further refines the "National Code of Prison Regulation," otherwise known as the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. , (1992) (slip op., at 12) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).


[83] I adhere to my belief, expressed in Hudson and Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. (1993) (THOMAS, J., dissenting), that "judges or juries -- but not jailers -- impose 'punishment.'" Id., at (slip op., at 4). "Punishment," from the time of the Founding through the present day, "has always meant a 'fine, penalty, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of a court, for some crime or offense committed by him.'" Id., at (slip op., at 2) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1234 (6th ed. 1990)). See also 2 T. Sheridan, A General Dictionary of the English Language (1780) (defining "punishment" as "any infliction imposed in vengeance of a crime"). Conditions of confinement are not punishment in any recognized sense of the term, unless imposed as part of a sentence. See Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As an original matter, therefore, this case would be an easy one for me: because the unfortunate attack that befell petitioner was not part of his sentence, it did not constitute "punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.


[84] When approaching this case, however, we do not write on a clean slate. Beginning with Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976), the Court's prison condition jurisprudence has been guided, not by the text of the Constitution, but rather by "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Id., at 102 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also ante, at 6; Helling, supra ; Hudson, supra. I continue to doubt the legitimacy of that mode of constitutional decisionmaking, the logical result of which, in this context, is to transform federal judges into superintendents of prison conditions nationwide. See Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 4-6) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Although Estelle loosed the Eighth Amendment from its historical moorings, the Court is now unwilling to accept the full consequences of its decision and therefore resorts to the "subjective" (state of mind) component of post- Estelle Eighth Amendment analysis in an attempt to contain what might otherwise be unbounded liability for prison officials under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Cf. McGill, supra, at 348.


[85] Although I disagree with the constitutional predicate of the Court's analysis, I share the Court's view that petitioner's theory of liability -- that a prison official can be held liable for risks to prisoner safety of which he was ignorant but should have known -- fails under even "a straightforward application of Estelle." Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). In adopting the "deliberate indifference" standard for challenges to prison conditions, Estelle held that mere "inadvertence" or "negligence" does not violate the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S., at 105-106. "From the outset, thus, we specified that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to every deprivation, or even every unnecessary deprivation, suffered by a prisoner, but only that narrow class of deprivations involving 'serious' injury inflicted by prison officials acting with a culpable state of mind." Hudson, supra, at (slip op., at 4) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). We reiterated this understanding in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 305, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991), holding that "mere negligence" does not constitute deliberate indifference under Estelle. See also, e. g., Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251, 106 S. Ct. 1078 (1986). Petitioner's suggested "should have known" standard is nothing but a negligence standard, as the Court's discussion implicitly assumes. Ante, at 10-12. Thus, even under Estelle, petitioner's theory of liability necessarily fails.


[86] The question remains, however, what state of mind is sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference under Estelle. Given my serious doubts concerning the correctness of Estelle in extending the Eighth Amendment to cover challenges to conditions of confinement, I believe the scope of the Estelle "right" should be confined as narrowly as possible. Cf. Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). In Wilson, the Court has already held that the highest subjective standard known to our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence -- "malicious and sadistic" action "for the very purpose of causing harm," Whitley, supra, at 320-321 (internal quotation marks omitted) -- "does not apply to prison conditions cases." Wilson, supra, at 303. The Court today adopts the next highest level of subjective intent, actual knowledge of the type sufficient to constitute recklessness in the criminal law, ante, at 10, 13, noting that "due regard" is appropriate "for prison officials' 'unenviable task of keeping dangerous men in safe custody under humane conditions.'"*fn1 Ante, at 18 (quoting Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 193 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J.)).


[87] Even though the Court takes a step in the right direction by adopting a restrictive definition of deliberate indifference, I cannot join the Court's opinion. For the reasons expressed more fully in my dissenting opinions in Hudson and Helling, I remain unwilling to subscribe to the view, adopted by ipse dixit in Estelle, that the Eighth Amendment regulates prison conditions not imposed as part of a sentence. Indeed, "were the issue squarely presented, . . . I might vote to overrule Estelle." Helling, supra, at (slip op., at 6) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, the issue is not squarely presented in this case. Respondents have not asked us to revisit Estelle, and no one has briefed or argued the question. In addition to these prudential concerns, stare decisis counsels hesitation in overruling dubious precedents. See ibid. For these reasons, I concur in the Court's judgment.*fn2 In doing so, however, I remain hopeful that in a proper case the Court will reconsider Estelle in light of the constitutional text and history.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Opinion Footnotes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[88] *fn1 Petitioner also sought an order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to place petitioner in a "co-correctional facility" (i.e., one separately housing male and female prisoners but allowing coeducational programming). Petitioner tells us, however, that the Bureau no longer operates such facilities, and petitioner apparently no longer seeks this relief.


[89] *fn2 Other Court of Appeals decisions to the same effect include Villante v. Department of Corrections, 786 F.2d 516, 519 (CA2 1986); Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 361-362 (CA3 1992); Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (CA4 1987); Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1224 (CA5 1986); Roland v. Johnson, 856 F.2d 764, 769 (CA6 1988); Goka v. Bobbitt, 862 F.2d 646, 649-650 (CA7 1988); Martin v. White, 742 F.2d 469, 474 (CA8 1984); Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (CA9 1986); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 572 (CA10 1980); LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526, 1535 (CA11 1993); and Morgan v. District of Columbia, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 69, 824 F.2d 1049, 1057 (CADC 1987).


[90] *fn3 At what point a risk of inmate assault becomes sufficiently substantial for Eighth Amendment purposes is a question this case does not present, and we do not address it.


[91] *fn4 Between the poles lies "gross negligence" too, but the term is a "nebulous" one, in practice typically meaning little different from recklessness as generally understood in the civil law (which we discuss later in the text). See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 34, p. 212 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser and Keeton).


[92] *fn5 See Reply Brief for Petitioner 5 (suggesting that a prison official is deliberately indifferent if he "knew facts which rendered an unreasonable risk obvious; under such circumstances, the defendant should have known of the risk and will be charged with such knowledge as a matter of law"); see also Brief for Petitioner 20-21.


[93] *fn6 See Brief for Respondents 16 (asserting that deliberate indifference requires that a prison "official must know of the risk of harm to which an inmate is exposed").


[94] *fn7 Appropriate allusions to the criminal law would, of course, be proper during criminal prosecutions under, for example, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which sets criminal penalties for deprivations of rights under color of law.


[95] *fn8 While the obviousness of a risk is not conclusive and a prison official may show that the obvious escaped him, see infra, at 18, he would not escape liability if the evidence showed that he merely refused to verify underlying facts that he strongly suspected to be true, or declined to confirm inferences of risk that he strongly suspected to exist (as when a prison official is aware of a high probability of facts indicating that one prisoner has planned an attack on another but resists opportunities to obtain final confirmation; or when a prison official knows that some diseases are communicable and that a single needle is being used to administer flu shots to prisoners but refuses to listen to a subordinate who he strongly suspects will attempt to explain the associated risk of transmitting disease). When instructing juries in deliberate indifference cases with such issues of proof, courts should be careful to ensure that the requirement of subjective culpability is not lost. It is not enough merely to find that a reasonable person would have known, or that the defendant should have known, and juries should be instructed accordingly.


[96] *fn9 If, for example, the evidence before a district court establishes that an inmate faces an objectively intolerable risk of serious injury, the defendants could not plausibly persist in claiming lack of awareness, any more than prison officials who state during the litigation that they will not take reasonable measures to abate an intolerable risk of which they are aware could claim to be subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, and in deciding whether an inmate has established a continuing constitutional violation a district court may take such developments into account. At the same time, even prison officials who had a subjectively culpable state of mind when the lawsuit was filed could prevent issuance of an injunction by proving, during the litigation, that they were no longer unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm and that they would not revert to their obduracy upon cessation of the litigation.


[97] *fn10 The District Court's opinion is open to the reading that it required not only advance notification of a substantial risk of assault, but also advance notification of a substantial risk of assault posed by a particular fellow prisoner. See App. 124 (referring to "a specific threat to [a prisoner's] safety"). The Eighth Amendment, however, imposes no such requirement. See supra, at 16-17.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Concurrence Footnotes



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[98] *fn1 The facts of this case demonstrate how difficult that task can be. When petitioner was taken out of general prison population for security reasons at USP-Lewisburg, he asserted that he "did not need extra security precautions" and filed suit alleging that placing him in solitary confinement was unconstitutional. See Farmer v. Carlson, 685 F. Supp. 1335, 1342 (MD Pa. 1988). Petitioner's present claim, oddly enough, is essentially that leaving him in general prison population was unconstitutional because it subjected him to a risk of sexual assault.


[99] *fn2 I do not read the remand portion of the Court's opinion to intimate that the courts below reached the wrong result, especially because the Seventh Circuit has long followed the rule of law the Court lays down today. See McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344 (CA7 1991); Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645 (CA7 1985). Rather, I regard it as a cautionary measure undertaken merely to give the Court of Appeals an opportunity to decide in the first instance whether the District Court erroneously gave dispositive weight to petitioner's failure to complain to prison officials that he believed himself at risk of sexual assault in general prison population. Ante, at 23-24. If, on remand, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the District Court did not, nothing in the Court's opinion precludes the Seventh Circuit from summarily affirming the entry of summary judgment in respondents' favor.


[100] *fn* Numerous court opinions document the pervasive violence among inmates in our state and federal prisons. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 421, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575, 100 S. Ct. 624 (1980) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting); McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344, 348 (CA7 1991), cert. denied, U.S. (1992); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435 (CA9 1991) (en banc), cert. denied, U.S. (1992); Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 172 (CA3 1988); Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1222 (CA5), clarified, 799 F.2d 992 (CA5 1986); Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1372 (CA5 1981), overruled on other grounds, 790 F.2d 1174 (CA5 1986); Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158, 161 (CA4), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849, 66 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 136 (1980); Little v. Walker, 552 F.2d 193, 194 (CA7 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 932, 55 L. Ed. 2d 530, 98 S. Ct. 1507 (1978); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304, 308 (CA8 1971), later proceeding sub. nom., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522, 98 S. Ct. 2565 (1978).

RODERICK KEITH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. GARY JOHNSON; ET AL, Defendants; GARY JOHNSON; ROBERT R TREON, Senior Warden Allred Unit; RICHARD E WATHEN; JAMES D MOONEYHAM, Assistant Warden Allred Unit; TOMMY NORWOOD, Major; KENNETH BRIGHT, Major; TRACY KUYAVA, Administrative Technician Unit Classification Committee; TINA VITOLO, Administrative Technician Unit Classification Committee; VIKKI D WRIGHT, Director, Classification; JOSEPH BOYLE, Captain; JIMMY BOWMAN, Major; KENNETH WILLINGHAM, Sergeant; OSCAR PAUL, Lieutenant; ONESSIMO RANJEL, Lieutenant; DAVID TAYLOR, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellants

No. 03-10455, c/w No. 03-10505, c/w No. 03-10722

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

385 F.3d 503; 2004 U.S. App.

September 8, 2004, Filed


SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Revised October 13, 2004.

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

DISPOSITION: Johnson's motions to dismiss denied; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.


COUNSEL: [**2] For RODERICK KEITH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellee: Margaret Winter, Amy Fettig, Craig Allen Cowie, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC. Edward J. Tuddenham, Austin, TX.

For GARY JOHNSON, ROBERT R TREON, Senior Warden, Allred Unit, Defendant - Appellant: Celamaine Cunniff, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Tepper, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX.

For RICHARD WATHEN, JAMES D MOONEYHAM, Assistant Warden Allred Unit, TOMMY NORWOOD, KENNETH BRIGHT, Major, TRACY KUYAVA, Administrative Technician Unit Classification Committee, VIKKI WRIGHT, Director, Classification, JOSEPH BOYLE, Captain, JIMMY BOWMAN, Major, KENNETH WILLINGHAM, Sergeant, OSCAR PAUL, Lieutenant, ONESSIMO RANJEL, Lieutenant, DAVID TAYLOR, Lieutenant, Defendant - Appellant: Celamaine Cunniff, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Tepper, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX.

JUDGES: Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: KING

OPINION: [*512] KING, Chief Judge:
This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. According to the plaintiff's version of events, which is disputed by the defendants, he suffered through a horrific eighteen-month period of incarceration during which the defendant prison officials failed to protect him from prison gangs who repeatedly raped him and bought and sold him as a sexual slave. His complaint asserted violations of the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court denied the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, and they now bring these interlocutory appeals. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. We conclude that the majority, but not all, of the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed on grounds of failure to exhaust or qualified immunity. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Roderick Johnson entered the Texas prison system in January 2000 after the revocation of a sentence of probation that [**3] he had received for a nonviolent burglary. He was transferred to the system's Allred Unit on September 6, 2000. Upon arriving at Allred, Johnson met with a three-person Unit Classification Committee (UCC) for a determination of his initial housing status. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and possessed an effeminate manner. Johnson told the UCC that he had been housed in "safekeeping" before his transfer. n1 Safekeeping is a housing status that separates vulnerable individuals from more aggressive offenders. According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) regulations, safekeeping is indicated when an inmate is at risk of victimization, has enemies in the population, has a history of homosexuality, or possesses other characteristics that mark the offender as vulnerable to predation. But according to Johnson, one of the members of the UCC told him that "we don't protect punks on this farm"--"punk" being prison slang for a homosexual man. Johnson was put in the general population. He was raped by other inmates almost immediately.

n1 The parties' briefs take apparently conflicting positions on whether Johnson was housed in safekeeping before his transfer. Johnson's brief says that "he had been housed in safekeeping just before he was transferred to Allred Unit." But the defendants say that "Johnson was not classified 'safekeeping' prior to the his arrival at the Allred Unit." It appears that both sides are technically correct: Johnson was housed in transient safekeeping shortly before his transfer, but he was not officially classified to that status.

[**4]
Johnson's complaint and affidavit describe a horrific series of events that allegedly occurred over the next eighteen months at Allred. In October 2000, not long after his arrival in the general population, a prison gang member named Hernandez asserted "ownership" over Johnson, forcing Johnson to become his sexual servant. Johnson informed Assistant Warden Mooneyham and Sergeant Willingham of the rapes and requested medical attention, but they told him that care was [*513] available only for emergencies and that he should file a written request for medical attention. By November, Hernandez began to rent Johnson out to perform coerced sexual favors for other inmates. Johnson believed that he would be severely beaten or killed if he refused. Hernandez beat Johnson on November 30, and medical personnel documented bruising and swelling on Johnson's face. At several times over the following months, Johnson was moved to different buildings at Allred and was raped and owned by different prison gangs.
Johnson sought help from guards, filed numerous "life-endangerment" forms, and wrote letters to prison administrators. Prison officers who investigated Johnson's complaints generally determined that [**5] they could not be corroborated; the officers usually did not interview any of the inmates mentioned in Johnson's complaints, purportedly out of a concern to protect the "integrity of the investigation" or to protect Johnson. Johnson's life-endangerment forms triggered a number of appearances before UCCs composed of various prison officials and employees. Johnson asked the UCCs to place him in safekeeping status, place him in protective custody (which entails a significant loss of privileges), or transfer him to a different prison on multiple occasions: December 13, 2000; February 14, 2001; February 21, 2001; March 16, 2001; September 5, 2001; December 13, 2001; and January 17, 2002. Each time the committee refused Johnson's requests, ostensibly because there was no concrete evidence of victimization. According to Johnson, the members of the committees repeatedly told him that he either had to fight off his attackers or submit to being used for sex. The comments allegedly made by the UCC members, which they dispute, include statements such as: "You need to get down there and fight or get you a man," "There's no reason why Black punks can't fight and survive in general population if [**6] they don't want to f***," and remarks to the effect that, since Johnson was homosexual, he probably liked the sexual assaults he was experiencing.
In addition to writing letters to administrators and filing life-endangerment notices, Johnson also used the TDCJ's formal two-step administrative grievance process on several occasions. The grievances described his victimization and his repeated unsuccessful requests for protection or a transfer to safekeeping. The grievances were denied, generally on the basis that unit officials or UCC committees had already conducted proper investigations and had found no substantiating evidence. n2

n2 Additional details regarding Johnson's grievances are provided later, in conjunction with our analysis of the exhaustion issue.

Johnson eventually contacted the American Civil Liberties Union. Shortly thereafter, Johnson went before the UCC again, on April 1, 2002, and was approved for a transfer to TDCJ's Michael Unit. During his December 2002 deposition, Johnson testified that [**7] he had not suffered attacks at the Michael Unit, where he was housed in safekeeping.
Johnson filed suit in the district court in April 2002 against over a dozen TDCJ officials and employees. The defendants comprise supervisory officials such as TDCJ Executive Director Gary Johnson, n3 Senior Warden Treon, Assistant Warden Wathen, Assistant Warden Mooneyham, and Director of Classification Wright; guards who failed to protect Johnson on [*514] discrete occasions (namely, Lieutenant Paul n4 and Sergeant Willingham); and many of the members of the various UCCs that had denied Johnson protection (namely, Major Norwood, Major Bright, UCC Administrative Technician Kuyava, UCC Administrative Technician Vitolo, Captain Boyle, Major Bowman, Lieutenant Ranjel, and Lieutenant Taylor). n5 The lengthy complaint asserted three causes of action: (1) failure to protect Johnson from harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, (2) a race-based Equal Protection claim charging that officials denied him protection because he is black, and (3) a sexual-orientation-based Equal Protection claim predicated on the allegation that the defendants denied Johnson protection out of anti-homosexual animus. The suit sought [**8] injunctive relief and damages. The defendants answered Johnson's complaint with a blanket denial of almost all of its allegations.

n3 This defendant is referred to in this opinion as "Executive Director Johnson." The name "Johnson" refers to the plaintiff, Roderick Johnson.

n4 The incident involving Paul occurred in March 2002. According to Johnson, a group of inmates molested him and a mentally ill inmate in the showers. Afterward, Johnson told Paul, who offered no assistance and instead made menacing comments to Johnson.

n5 There is some overlap among these general categories of defendants. For instance, Wathen sometimes sat on the UCC; Mooneyham sat once on the UCC and (with Willingham) was involved in the October 2000 incident described earlier, in addition to carrying out his supervisory responsibilities.

In July 2002, Executive Director Johnson, Treon, and Wright moved for judgment on the pleadings on Johnson's Equal Protection claims (but not the Eighth Amendment claim). The plaintiff did not [**9] oppose this motion, and the district court later granted it.
In November 2002, all of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and, at the same time, all of the defendants who were still facing Equal Protection claims (i.e., all defendants but Executive Director Johnson, Treon, and Wright) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to the Equal Protection claims. n6 The motion for judgment on the pleadings asserted, inter alia, an entitlement to qualified immunity on the ground that Johnson had not alleged violations of rights that were clearly established.

n6 At the same time, two of the defendants (Executive Director Johnson and Paul) also sought judgment on the pleadings with regard to Johnson's Eighth Amendment claim. The other defendants, however, did not challenge the Eighth Amendment theory at the pleadings stage.

While those motions were still pending, the defendants also filed, in January 2003, a motion for summary judgment on [**10] the Eighth Amendment claims, again asserting qualified immunity among other grounds. The motion also reasserted the defendants' arguments concerning Johnson's Equal Protection claims.
On April 9, 2003, the district court denied the defendants' January 2003 motion for summary judgment in an order stating that fact issues remained regarding whether the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to Johnson's safety; the court further held that the factual disputes precluded a ruling on qualified immunity on the current record. The court's order also rejected the defendants' exhaustion argument, which they had re-urged in their motion for summary judgment.
The defendants then requested a ruling on the still-pending November 2002 motion for judgment on the pleadings, which largely concerned the Equal Protection claims. On April 17, 2003, the court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Johnson's pleadings [*515] adequately stated a claim. The order also denied as moot the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, as the court's previous order had rejected that argument. Finally, the order denied as moot the request for qualified immunity, the [**11] court having already determined that material fact issues required trial.
The defendants filed a notice of appeal from the April 9 order denying summary judgment, and this became appeal No. 03-10455. Later, they filed a notice of appeal from the April 17 order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings--docketed as appeal No. 03-10505. Both interlocutory appeals are predicated on the rule that denials of qualified immunity based on issues of law are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-30, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 105 S. Ct. 2806 (1985). The district court later certified, and this court granted leave to pursue, an interlocutory appeal of the district court's ruling that Johnson had exhausted his administrative remedies--appeal No. 03-10722. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Johnson has filed motions to dismiss Nos. 03-10505 and 03-10455 for want of appellate jurisdiction.
On December 19, 2003, Johnson was released from prison into mandatory supervision at a halfway house. The defendants have argued, and the plaintiff conceded at oral argument, that Johnson's claims for injunctive relief and his [**12] claims against the defendants in their official capacities have been rendered moot, leaving only his claims against the defendants in their individual capacities for damages.
II. EXHAUSTION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), prisoners are required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). The defendants argue that Johnson's grievances were insufficiently detailed, untimely, or both, thus failing to exhaust his administrative remedies. We review de novo the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2001).
The Texas prison system has developed a two-step formal grievance process. The Step 1 grievance, which must be filed within fifteen days of the complained-of incident, is handled within the prisoner's facility. After an adverse decision [**13] at Step 1, the prisoner has ten days to file a Step 2 grievance, which is handled at the state level. This court has previously held that a prisoner must pursue a grievance through both steps for it to be considered exhausted. See Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
The record in this case includes portions of the guidelines that TDCJ provides prisoners regarding how to file grievances. Among other things, the rules direct inmates to write "briefly and clearly" but also to "be very specific about your grievance or your problem." They state that a grievance should contain facts, not legal words or conclusions. They further direct the prisoner to "tell us what action you want us to take to resolve your grievance or problem," but they specifically state that a prisoner should "not ask us to take disciplinary action against employees." The guidelines state that an inmate should not "submit repetitive grievances on the same issue." Finally, they warn that an inmate is subject to sanctions for abusing [*516] the grievance process, such as by making "excessive, frivolous and vexatious use of the procedure."
In addition to writing many administrative life- [**14] endangerment notices and letters, Johnson twice filed formal grievances on TDCJ-provided standard forms and pursued them through the two-step process just described. In particular, he filed Step 1 grievances on March 18, 2001 and December 30, 2001, both times appealing the matter to Step 2 after being denied at Step 1. (He filed Step 1 grievances on a few other occasions as well, but he did not fully exhaust them by proceeding through Step 2.) Johnson's complaint included an allegation that he had exhausted available administrative remedies. n7

n7 Before turning to the substance of the exhaustion requirement, we observe that there is a threshold issue regarding whether the defendants properly raised the exhaustion issue. Though the defendants raised exhaustion in their motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, their answer to Johnson's complaint did not raise the issue. Johnson argues that exhaustion is an affirmative defense and points to the general rule, see Giles v. GE, 245 F.3d 474, 491-92 (5th Cir. 2001), that affirmative defenses not raised in the answer are ordinarily deemed waived. The defendants contend that exhaustion is not an affirmative defense but is instead part of the plaintiff's cause of action.
As Johnson accurately points out, the substantial majority of courts of appeals that have considered the question hold that exhaustion is an affirmative defense, generally reasoning that it is similar to a statute-of-limitations defense. See, e.g., Casanova v. Dubois, 304 F.3d 75, 77 n.3 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing cases). But see Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 2003) (taking the contrary view and requiring prisoners to allege and show exhaustion of administrative remedies). Some prior decisions of this court seem to imply or assume that exhaustion is a component of the plaintiff's claim, not an affirmative defense that must be raised and proved by the defendants. See, e.g., Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 2003); Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1998); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). But, arguably, these cases have not directly decided the question. Assuming arguendo that the question is as-yet undecided, we have no occasion to decide it here. While failure to raise an affirmative defense in the answer generally results in a waiver, noncompliance can be excused if the defendant raises the issue at a "pragmatically sufficient" time and there is no prejudice to the plaintiff. See Giles, 245 F.3d at 491-92. The defendants raised the exhaustion issue in their motion for judgment on the pleadings, and here it does not appear that Johnson was surprised in any way, as might happen when a party waits until shortly before trial to raise a new defense. Moreover, failure to plead exhaustion in the answer is especially excusable here given that the law on the topic is not clearly settled. See Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 697 (8th Cir. 2001) (excusing defendant's failure to raise exhaustion in a timely manner because circuit law regarding PLRA exhaustion was unsettled at the time).

[**15]
Section 1997e(a) does not say how specific a prisoner's administrative grievances must be, and this court has so far given relatively little guidance regarding what a prisoner must say in his grievances to exhaust his claims properly. As a general matter, courts typically use a standard according to which a grievance should give prison officials "fair notice" of the problem that will form the basis of the prisoner's suit. See, e.g., Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2003). The parties agree on that generalized formulation but, unsurprisingly, they differ on how much detail is required in order to provide notice of the prisoner's problem.
In deciding how much detail is required in a given case, we believe that a court must interpret the exhaustion requirement in light of its purposes, which include the goal of giving officials "time and opportunity to address complaints internally," Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525, 152 L. Ed. 2d 12, 122 S. Ct. 983 (2002). [*517] Thus, a grievance should be considered sufficient to the extent that the grievance gives officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that will later form the basis of the lawsuit. Further, [**16] as a practical matter, the amount of information necessary will likely depend to some degree on the type of problem about which the inmate is complaining. If an inmate claims that a guard acted improperly, we can assume that the administrators responding to the grievance would want to know--and a prisoner could ordinarily be expected to provide--details regarding who was involved and when the incident occurred, or at least other available information about the incident that would permit an investigation of the matter. In contrast, a grievance in which an inmate says that his cell is habitually infested with vermin, or that the prices in the commissary are too high, could adequately alert administrators to the problem whether or not the grievance names anyone. Compare Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 505 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a grievance specifically complaining of a beating at the hands of one guard did not suffice to exhaust a failure-to-protect claim against another guard, not mentioned in the grievance, who stood by and watched), with Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207-10 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a prisoner who knew only that he had [**17] not received prescribed medical equipment had exhausted his claim, notwithstanding that his grievance did not name anyone).
Beyond those general practical considerations, the prison system's own rules regarding grievances provide both inmates and the courts with more specific guidance. Since prisoners are generally required to follow the procedures adopted by the state prison system, the specificity requirement should be interpreted in light of the grievance rules of the particular prison system, here the TDCJ. See Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2002) ("Grievances must contain the sort of information that the administrative system requires."). n8 Thus, in deciding whether the grievance gives officials an opportunity to address the problem, we should consider whether the grievance provides the type of information that the TDCJ rules request.

n8 The Strong opinion qualified its holding by noting that a state's procedures would be invalid if they established requirements inconsistent with the federal policies behind § 1983 and § 1997e(a). 297 F.3d at 649. In other words, a state could not make grievance rules that prevented the vindication of substantive rights.

[**18]
The defendants raise three distinct types of exhaustion arguments on appeal: They argue that Johnson did not exhaust (1) certain of his legal theories (2) regarding certain episodes (3) against certain defendants. We consider each in turn, and we conclude that many of Johnson's claims are unexhausted.

A. Which theories?
Johnson's suit contains Eighth Amendment claims, race-based Equal Protection claims, and claims for failure to protect because of sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause. We begin with the question of which of those three categories of claims were exhausted.
As a general matter, there is authority from several courts to the effect that a prisoner, who is of course typically uncounseled, need not present legal theories in his grievances. See, e.g., Burton, 321 F.3d at 575 ("We would not require a prisoner's grievance to allege a specific legal theory or facts that correspond to all the required elements of a particular legal theory."); see also Strong, 297 F.3d at 650 (concluding that a prisoner need not present legal theories, at least as long as prison [*518] rules do not require that). We agree. As we discussed [**19] above, the purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to give prison administrators an opportunity to address a problem, and they can do this whether or not the prisoner tells them the constitutional provisions that the problem implicates. Further, TDCJ rules specifically instruct inmates to provide facts, not legal terminology.
Johnson's grievances repeatedly refer to the defendants' failure to protect him from assaults and (though this was unnecessary) specifically name the Eighth Amendment. The defendants admit that the grievances exhausted Eighth Amendment claims, at least against a few defendants regarding a few instances--matters that we will discuss later. They also argue, however, that the grievances do not exhaust any of Johnson's two types of Equal Protection claims against any defendant.
Race. As to race discrimination, the defendants correctly observe that Johnson's grievances nowhere state that he was suffering racial discrimination. Indeed, his grievances do not mention his race at all. Even though Johnson need not present a full-fledged legal theory in his grievance, his grievances must alert prison officials to a problem and give them an opportunity to address [**20] it. His grievances gave them notice that there was a problem with protection from sexual assaults, but we do not think that they can be read to give notice that there was a race-related problem. See Medera v. Griffin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 532, *30, No. 02 C 1064, 2003 WL 132496, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2003) (holding that grievances regarding prison conditions that allegedly violated the Eighth Amendment did not exhaust an Equal Protection claim where the grievances contained "no mention whatsoever of the plaintiff's heritage, nor any references to racial slurs"). n9

n9 To be sure, Johnson's Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection claims are not wholly unrelated: His race, he claims, is part of the reason why the defendants failed to protect him. Cf. Burton, 321 F.3d at 577. Nonetheless, these claims reflect distinct problems with prison staff, and a grievance that suggested a racial component to Johnson's situation could be expected to produce a different type of administrative response. Cf. Porter, 534 U.S. at 525 (explaining that one purpose of the exhaustion requirement is the creation of an "administrative record that clarifies the contours of the controversy"). We do not believe that it is too much to ask that a prisoner at least suggest a racial component if he is later going to sue on that ground.

[**21]
Sexual orientation. Johnson's grievances mention his sexual orientation many times. For the most part, the references to Johnson's sexuality are intertwined with Johnson's complaints about the officials' failure to protect him from assaults. The defendants contend that this does not necessarily indicate that Johnson was complaining that the officials were purposefully discriminating against him, by refusing to protect him, because of his homosexuality. The grievances are certainly not as explicit as one would expect from a lawyer, but as we stated above a prisoner need not provide all of the elements of a constitutional claim as long as the grievance at least reasonably indicates a problem. Further, Johnson's grievances do also suggest a complaint that the officials considered Johnson's sexuality: Johnson writes that members of the UCC responded to his requests for protection from rape by saying "that they feel that because I'm a homosexual I'm enticing [illegible]." In addition, a reasonable reader could infer that the officials would not tell a heterosexual inmate that, instead of getting protection from victimization, he should "choose someone to be with." Under the circumstances, [**22] we conclude that Johnson's grievances were sufficient [*519] to give prison officials fair notice that there might have been a sexual-orientation-related aspect to Johnson's problem.

B. Which incidents?
Having decided which general theories Johnson may pursue, we turn next to examining which events he has exhausted.
Johnson's claim is that prison officials failed to protect him, over the course of some eighteen months, from near-constant sexual assault. Johnson's complaint, and his summary-judgment evidence, covers the repeated abuses in uncomfortable detail and lists many unsuccessful encounters with prison officials. These include face-to-face encounters with several guards who allegedly failed to take steps to protect Johnson on various occasions, correspondence with supervisory officials, and meetings with UCC committees. The defendants contend that the only exhausted claims in this case are those against two defendants, Wathen and Kuyava, as regards their involvement in the March 16, 2001 UCC. They reason that since TDCJ rules require that a Step 1 grievance be filed within fifteen days of the complained-of event, a grievance can only exhaust claims that relate to matters [**23] that occurred within the preceding fifteen days. Therefore, Johnson's March 18 Step 1 grievance could exhaust claims arising from the March 16, 2001 UCC, but it could not exhaust any claims that arise from conduct before March 2001. Johnson's December 2001 Step 1 grievance, which was also appealed through Step 2, failed to exhaust any claims, continue the defendants, because no UCC meeting occurred in the fifteen days preceding the filing of that Step 1 grievance.
Johnson did not use the formal grievance process--or, rather, he did not properly use it by both filing a Step 1 grievance and appealing the grievance to Step 2--until his March 18, 2001 Step 1 grievance. We agree with the defendants that Johnson has not exhausted any claims that arise from events that occurred more than fifteen days before this grievance. While it is true that the conditions that Johnson suffered both before and after the grievance were of the same general character, to permit the March 2001 grievance to reach back to events that transpired up to six months earlier would effectively negate the state's fifteen-day rule and frustrate the prison system's legitimate interest in investigating complaints [**24] while they are still fresh. That a condition continues does not excuse the failure to file a grievance earlier. Accordingly, we hold that Johnson's grievances do not permit him to pursue claims regarding conduct that occurred before March 2001; in particular, this means that he has not exhausted claims related to the UCC meetings of September 6, 2000, December 13, 2000, February 14, 2001, and February 21, 2001; nor has he exhausted claims regarding his encounters with Willingham, which all occurred before March 2001. n10

n10 We pause to note that our holding does not mean that information regarding unexhausted events cannot be used as evidence, if relevant and otherwise admissible, in proving claims that are exhausted. Cf. United States v. Ashdown, 509 F.2d 793, 798 (5th Cir. 1975).

Having concluded that Johnson's March 2001 grievance did not exhaust claims that involve events before the March 2001 UCC meeting, we next consider whether Johnson has exhausted claims related to conduct that occurred [**25] after the March 2001 grievance. The defendants contend that no such claims were exhausted because none of the three subsequent UCC meetings at which Johnson was denied protection--which occurred in September 2001, December 2001, and January 2002--was [*520] followed within fifteen days by a Step 1 grievance. In particular, Johnson's December 30, 2001 Step 1 grievance was a few days too late to reach the December 2001 UCC meeting, which was held on the 13th.
We do not agree with the defendants' argument that Johnson has not exhausted any claims that arise from events later than the March 16, 2001 UCC meeting. The March 2001 grievance alerted prison officials to the fact that Johnson was being subjected to repeated assaults and was not receiving any protection from the system, in particular a transfer to safekeeping status:


I am writing to state that I am a homosexual who and [sic] is still being assaulted sexually, physically, mentally. I have brought this issue up to unit administration a number of times and have failed to be moved to a safe location that houses other homosexuals. . . . Get me off this building or this unit before I am assaulted again. . . . I have used all the [**26] proper channels to resolve this problem but they simply refuse to listen. Please get the warden or U.C.C. to move me off this building . . . . They have failed to provide me safety.


The grievance investigation worksheet corresponding to this Step 1 grievance summarizes the issue as "being assaulted," and the administration responded to Johnson's grievance by writing that a UCC had already been convened in response to Johnson's life-endangerment notices and had found his claims insufficient. (That is, administrators did not take Johnson's grievance as a complaint about only the prior UCC per se, n11 but rather they viewed the UCC as part of their response to the problem of being attacked.) After the officials rejected Johnson's grievance, the same condition of confinement of which he had been complaining continued.

n11 By way of comparison, inmates sometimes do claim that the procedures or outcome of a particular administrative hearing violated their rights. See, e.g., Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 1998); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1995).

[**27]
After one full trip through the two-step review process, Johnson later filed the December 30, 2001 Step 1 grievance, which, according to the defendants, exhausted nothing because the most recent prior UCC was on December 13, more than fifteen days earlier. In this grievance Johnson reports that he is still "constantly" being threatened and harassed, that he is "subject to being bought and sold by gang members," and that he has not been moved despite asking the staff and the UCCs for help "numerous times." Notably, the prison administration did not reject this grievance as being an untimely attempt to grieve the results of the December 13 UCC. Cf. Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 13890 at *14, 2004 WL 1440601, at *5 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that prison officials could not argue that a prisoner's grievance failed to comply with procedural rules when the officials had looked past the purported technical defect and rejected the grievance for substantive reasons); accord Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 2004 WL 1545241, at * 1 (7th Cir. 2004). Rather, their internal documents portrayed this grievance as another complaint about being attacked, and [**28] the administration rejected it on the ground that they had already answered Johnson's complaints about safety in their response to a prior Step 1 grievance that was filed shortly before the December 13 UCC meeting. Thus, the prison administration itself evidently did not understand Johnson's grievance as a complaint about the December 13 UCC meeting in particular, but instead as a complaint about a continued lack of [*521] protection. n12

n12 The grievance investigation form corresponding to the December 30 Step 1 grievance states, in the "Summary of Issue" section, "Dupl. 2002058973." This presumably means that administrators understood it to duplicate grievance # 2002058973, which was filed on December 5 and which, in turn, was summarized by administrators as "[inmate] wants protection." The grievance investigation form corresponding to the Step 2 appeal describes the issue as a complaint about being threatened and harassed.

As a practical matter, Johnson could not have been expected to file a new grievance every [**29] fifteen days, or each time he was assaulted (which, according to him, was virtually every day), for the entire period during which he remained unprotected in the general population. Persuasive authority holds that, in such circumstances, prisoners need not continue to file grievances about the same issue. See Sulton v. Wright, 265 F. Supp. 2d 292, 295-99 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (holding that two grievances filed during the course of a several-year period of repeated delays in treating an inmate's injured knee sufficed to exhaust the entire course of conduct, despite the prison system's rule that grievances must be filed within fourteen days of an occurrence); Aiello v. Litscher, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1074 (W.D. Wis. 2000) (holding that when inmates have filed a grievance regarding a prison policy, they need not file grievances regarding subsequent incidents in which the policy is applied); cf. Lewis v. Washington, 197 F.R.D. 611, 614 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (holding that inmates complaining about various aspects of the conditions in their housing unit need only grieve their placement in that unit, not each of the various alleged unconstitutional [**30] conditions present in the unit; "otherwise the defendants could obstruct legal remedies to unconstitutional actions by subdividing the grievances . . . ."). Further, the TDCJ rules specifically direct prisoners not to file repetitive grievances about the same issue and hold out the threat of sanctions for excessive use of the grievance process. It would make little sense to require a prisoner being subjected to a frigid cell to continue to file grievances stating that the cell remains frigid, and the same principle applies here. Cf. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991) (referring to "the temperature he is subjected to in his cell, and the protection he is afforded against other inmates" both as "conditions of confinement" subject to the Eighth Amendment).
Given the circumstances of this case and the nature of Johnson's complaint, we do not believe that he was required to file repeated grievances reminding the prison officials that he remained subject to attack in the general population. Johnson's grievances were sufficient to exhaust claims that arose from the same continuing failure to protect him from sexual assault. Thus, we disagree [**31] with the defendants' suggestion that he has failed to exhaust any claims relating to the September 2001, December 2001, and January 2002 UCC meetings. n13

n13 We pause to observe that we do not here hold that a grievance filed in response to one particular incident automatically exhausts claims that arise from future incidents of the same general type. Thus, an inmate who claims to have been beaten by guards (or, for that matter, not protected by guards) once one month and again the next month can rightfully be expected to grieve both incidents, following TDCJ's fifteen-day rule in each case. Nor do we hold that Johnson would not be required to file additional grievances for future incidents that reflect a different problem. For instance, Johnson's claims against Lieutenant Paul stem solely from the March 2002 incident in which Paul responded indifferently after Johnson reported being harassed in the shower. This discrete incident reflects a different type of problem that would require a different grievance. (Indeed, we will hold in the next section of the opinion that Johnson has not exhausted his claims against Paul.)

[**32]

[*522] C. Which defendants?
Johnson has sued fifteen prison officials, but the defendants contend that he has not exhausted his claims against many of them. In particular, they argue that a claim against a person has been exhausted only if that person was identified in the prisoner's Step 1 grievance.
We are mindful that the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be sued; the grievance is not a summons and complaint that initiates adversarial litigation. Cf. Brown, 212 F.3d at 1207-10 (rejecting a rule that a prisoner must always name defendants in his grievance). But, at the same time, the grievance must provide administrators with a fair opportunity under the circumstances to address the problem that will later form the basis of the suit, and for many types of problems this will often require, as a practical matter, that the prisoner's grievance identify individuals who are connected with the problem.
Non-UCC defendants. Two of the defendants in this case, Paul and Willingham, are prison guards who are accused of failing to protect Johnson on a few [**33] discrete occasions. The character of Johnson's formal grievances is that he is frequently being assaulted and has repeatedly but unsuccessfully sought a change in housing status through the established administrative channels. Nowhere does he mention or describe Paul or Willingham. Johnson's grievances would alert administrators particularly to problems regarding the prison's housing and classification practices, but we do not think that they can fairly be read to alert them to, or give them an opportunity to remedy, the discrete conduct that forms the basis of Johnson's claims against these two officers, which is of a different character. (In addition, as observed above, all of the conduct concerning Willingham occurred before March 2001, which is an independent reason to hold it unexhausted.)
Johnson has also sued three supervisory-level officials who never sat on a UCC: Treon, Wright, and Executive Director Johnson. Johnson specifically named Treon and Wright, but only in Step 2 grievances. The defendants contend that this is insufficient, for TDCJ rules instruct inmates not to "bring up new grievance issues on appeal." But cf. Burton, 321 F.3d at 574 (permitting [**34] a prisoner to provide "additional factual detail" at appellate stages of grievance process). Johnson's grievances did not mention Executive Director Johnson, but Johnson says that there is no need to mention the Executive Director. See Brown, 212 F.3d at 1209 (observing that "everyone involved in the grievance process knows who the warden and [state prison] commissioner are"). We need not struggle with these matters here, however, because we determine in Part III of our opinion that these three supervisory defendants are clearly entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity. n14

n14 We note that the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional. See Underwood, 151 F.3d at 294-95.

UCC defendants. We held above that Johnson had not exhausted any claims related to UCC meetings before March 2001. We now ask whether, regarding the exhausted UCC meetings, Johnson's grievances adequately identified the relevant defendants.
[*523] The defendants conceded at oral argument, and [**35] we agree, that a grievance can sufficiently identify a person even if it does not provide an actual name; functional descriptions and the like--e.g., a reference to "the guards in the shower room" on a certain date--would suffice. Cf. id. at 1209-10 & n.4 (noting prison administrators' superior access to personnel information and records). As we have already said, Johnson's grievances repeatedly refer to the UCC committees and their failure to believe his pleas and take measures to protect him. This was adequate to put the prison administrators on notice that members of the UCCs were connected, indeed most closely connected, with Johnson's problem.

D. Summary
Drawing together the threads of the three arguments considered above, we conclude that many of Johnson's claims were not exhausted and should have been dismissed. All of his race-based Equal Protection claims are unexhausted, as are all claims against defendants Paul and Willingham. So too are all claims related to all UCC meetings before the March 2001 meeting; in particular, Johnson may not now pursue claims against Bright and Kuyava as regards the September 6, 2000 UCC; Mooneyham and Vitolo as regards the [**36] December 13, 2000 UCC; Bowman, Boyle, and Kuyava as regards the February 14, 2001 UCC; and Vitolo and Wathen as regards the February 21, 2001 UCC.
The claims that are exhausted are Johnson's Eighth Amendment claims and his claims for failure to protect because of sexual orientation under the Equal Protection Clause against Wathen and Kuyava as regards the March 16, 2001 UCC; Wathen as regards the September 5, 2001 UCC; Bowman, Kuyava, and Ranjel as regards the December 13, 2001 UCC; and Norwood, Vitolo, and Taylor as regards the January 17, 2002 UCC. n15

n15 We observe that the defendants have not argued in favor of a total exhaustion rule according to which an entire lawsuit must be dismissed without prejudice when certain claims are exhausted but others are not.

Finally, we find it unnecessary to reach a decision on exhaustion regarding the claims against Executive Director Johnson, Treon, and Wright.
III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
The defendants also appeal, in No. 03-10455, the district court's [**37] denial of their motion for summary judgment on Johnson's Eighth Amendment claims. Of course, in accordance with our rulings above, we need only consider those claims that Johnson exhausted.

A. Appellate jurisdiction in No. 03-10455
We begin by noting that Johnson has filed a motion to dismiss No. 03-10455 for want of appellate jurisdiction. Although a public official claiming qualified immunity can as a general matter immediately appeal a denial of summary judgment, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-30, 86 L. Ed. 2d 411, 105 S. Ct. 2806 (1985), we lack interlocutory jurisdiction to review the district court's conclusion that the plaintiff has created a genuine issue of fact as to some matter. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 319- 20, 132 L. Ed. 2d 238, 115 S. Ct. 2151, (1995). Johnson points out that the district court's order denying summary judgment specifically stated that genuine disputes of material fact existed that precluded a ruling on the immunity defense.
[*524] As the Supreme Court explained in Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 133 L. Ed. 2d 773, 116 S. Ct. 834 (1996), Johnson does not mean that there is no interlocutory appellate [**38] jurisdiction whenever the district court's order denying summary judgment states that fact questions remain. Rather, Johnson means only that the district court's ruling cannot be appealed to the extent that the official seeks to challenge the district court's determinations regarding the sufficiency of the summary-judgment record. Id. at 313. "Johnson permits [a defendant official] to claim on appeal that all of the conduct which the District Court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment met the Harlow standard of 'objective legal reasonableness.'" Id. Yet while the appeal will not be dismissed, we are nonetheless required to limit our review along the lines described in Johnson and Behrens. That is, we may not consider any of the defendants' arguments that challenge the district court's assessment that certain facts are sufficiently supported in the summary-judgment record. This turns out to be an important limitation in this case, as much (though not all) of the defendants' argument asks us to contradict one of the district court's determinations regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.

B. Analysis [**39]
1. Principles
The Supreme Court formally recognized and described the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect theory in Farmer v. Brennan:


Prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. . . . Gratuitously allowing the beating or rape of one prisoner by another serves no legitimate penological objective, any more than it squares with evolving standards of decency. Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.


511 U.S. 825, 833-34, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) (second and fifth alterations in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court went on to explain that, to succeed on such a claim, "the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm" and that the prison officials acted with "deliberate indifference" to the inmate's safety. Id. at 834. An official is deliberately indifferent when he "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial [**40] risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 837. The official's knowledge of the risk can be proven through circumstantial evidence, such as by showing that the risk was so obvious that the official must have known about it. Id. at 842. Finally--and significantly for purposes of this case--there is no liability if the official "responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." Id. at 844.
The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct was not only illegal but also violated clearly established law such that their behavior was objectively unreasonable. To be "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity, "the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987). The law can be clearly established even without prior [*525] cases that are on all fours with the present case, "so long as the prior decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct then at issue violated constitutional rights. [**41] " Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666, 122 S. Ct. 2508 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, the defendant's conduct cannot constitute a violation of clearly established law if, on the plaintiff's version of the facts, there is no violation at all. We therefore initially ask whether the challenged conduct actually presents a violation of federal law. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001); Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991).
With the necessary qualification that we may not in this appeal review the district court's conclusions that genuine issues of fact remain, see supra Part III.A, we exercise de novo review over the district court's legal ruling that, on the set of facts that it assumed, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Lemoine v. New Horizons Ranch & Ctr., Inc., 174 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir. 1999).
2. Application
Most of the defendants' brief in No. 03-10455 is devoted to showing that Johnson "failed to create a fact question over whether any [defendant's] conduct violated Johnson's constitutional [**42] rights or whether any [defendant's] conduct was objectively unreasonable." In particular, they repeatedly seek to demonstrate that, based on the information before them when they acted, either they did not realize the danger Johnson faced or they had reason to disbelieve Johnson's complaints of repeated rape and abuse. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844 (explaining that prison officials can try to prove that they "did not know of the underlying facts" or "believed (albeit unsoundly) that the risk . . . was insubstantial or nonexistent"). That particular argument, whether sound or not, is beyond the purview of this appeal. The Supreme Court expressly stated in Farmer that "whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact." Id. at 842 (emphasis added). The district court's April 9 order, while less detailed than ideal, clearly stated that there remained a fact question as to the defendants' knowledge: "Whether any Defendant had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk of harm is a question of material fact that [this] Court cannot resolve on the current record." As explained earlier, we lack [**43] jurisdiction to review the district court's assessment that a genuine issue of fact exists as to some matter, and therefore we cannot look behind the ruling that Johnson presented sufficient evidence for a fact-finder to conclude that the defendants knew of the risk. See Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d 908, 913 (5th Cir. 1998) (dismissing an interlocutory appeal where there was a factual dispute regarding whether defendant prison officials were aware of the danger to the inmate's safety). Accordingly, we must reject this aspect of the defendants' argument on appeal.
Nonetheless, our inability to second-guess the district court's conclusion that there existed a fact issue regarding the defendants' awareness of the risk does not end our inquiry. Under Farmer, prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment only if they are both aware of a substantial risk to inmate safety and fail to respond properly. The Farmer Court emphasized that there is no Eighth Amendment violation if the official "responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." 511 U.S. at 844. Although the district court's opinion in this [**44] case clearly stated that there were [*526] fact issues regarding the defendants' knowledge of the risk, the opinion did not directly address the material fact issues (if any) that existed with respect to how the defendants responded to the risk. When the district court fails to set forth carefully the factual disputes that preclude summary judgment, the Supreme Court has recognized that "a court of appeals may have to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed." Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. Even assuming that all of the defendants knew of the substantial risk to Johnson's safety, there would be no Eighth Amendment violation if the undisputed facts in the record demonstrated that they responded reasonably. Moreover, they would be entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law showed that their response was insufficient. Accordingly, we must consider whether some of the defendants might be entitled to qualified immunity on those grounds.
Non-UCC defendants. We concluded above that all claims against non-UCC defendants Paul and Willingham [**45] were unexhausted. We pretermitted deciding the exhaustion issue as regards Executive Director Johnson, Treon, and Wright in favor of ruling on qualified immunity, to which we now turn. In addition to discharging their usual duties of overseeing and reviewing those prison operations for which they were responsible, these supervisory officials had notice of Johnson's plight through various letters and life-endangerment forms. Like all prison officials, these supervisory defendants have a duty to take reasonable measures to protect inmates. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Yet given the size of the operation that they oversee, they cannot be expected to intervene personally in response to every inmate letter they receive. The record in this case shows that they responded to Johnson's complaints by referring the matter for further investigation or taking similar administrative steps. This was a reasonable discharge of their duty to protect the inmates in their care. Given that neither the Supreme Court nor this court has delineated the contours of what supervisory officials must do on pain of personal liability, their conduct did not violate clearly established law of which [**46] reasonable officers should have known. Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.
UCC defendants. We held in Part II that Johnson had not exhausted some of his claims arising from certain UCC meetings but that he had exhausted claims relating to the September 2001, December 2001, and January 2002 UCC meetings (in addition to the March 2001 meeting, which the defendants concede was exhausted). We now consider whether the defendants involved in those meetings are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity.
Certain UCCs responded to Johnson's claims by taking action such as ordering further investigation or separating Johnson from a particular inmate who had been threatening him. Those responses were unavailing, but they may well have been reasonable methods of addressing the risk that Johnson faced. See id. at 844 (observing that officials are not liable if they take reasonable measures, "even if the harm ultimately was not averted"). The most diligent prison administrators cannot guarantee complete safety. But unlike the UCCs that at least took some (unsuccessful) measures to protect Johnson, the particular UCC committees that we are now considering--March [**47] 2001, September 2001, December 2001, and January 2002--did nothing in response to Johnson's claims except [*527] (according to Johnson) tell him to fight off his attackers, despite the committee members' awareness (which awareness we must assume in this appeal) of the substantial risk that Johnson faced. Although it is not clear exactly what type of action an official is legally required to take under Farmer, the Supreme Court's opinion does make it abundantly clear that an official may not simply send the inmate into the general population to fight off attackers. See id. at 832-33 (explaining that jailers must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates" and "are not free to let the state of nature take its course" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). (And Farmer itself is factually similar to today's case in that it involved an effeminate prisoner who was raped after he was put in the general prison population. Id. at 829-30.) The defendants, at least according to Johnson, repeatedly expressed the view that Johnson must "learn to f*** or fight," which runs directly counter to Farmer's directive. Given the facts [**48] that we must assume for purposes of this appeal, this was not a reasonable response and it indeed contravenes clearly established law. Moreover, although the defendants contend that no single person acting alone could have granted Johnson's requests--the UCC makes recommendations to the state classification authority by majority vote of its three members, so nobody in particular is responsible, they say--that does not transform this deliberately indifferent failure to take any action into a reasonable method of discharging their duty to protect the prisoners in their care. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Wathen and Kuyava as regards the March 16, 2001 UCC; Wathen as regards the September 5, 2001 UCC; Bowman, Kuyava, and Ranjel as regards the December 13, 2001 UCC; and Norwood, Vitolo, and Taylor as regards the January 17, 2002 UCC. n16

n16 We observe as well that Johnson appeared before a UCC in April 2002. It is not clear whether Johnson is pursuing claims related to this meeting, at which Johnson was transferred to a different prison. Defendant Wathen was a member of this committee. If Johnson does mean to pursue such claims, we would hold that Wathen's response was a reasonable one and that the immunity defense should be upheld.

[**49]
IV. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS
Johnson relinquished Equal Protection claims against Executive Director Johnson, Treon, Wright, Mooneyham, Willingham, and Paul. After further subtracting claims that we deemed unexhausted in Part II, we are left with Johnson's claims for failure to protect because of sexual orientation against the participants in the March 2001, September 2001, December 2001, and January 2002 UCCs.

A. Appellate jurisdiction
Johnson has also filed a motion to dismiss No. 03-10505, the defendants' appeal from the district court's denial of judgment on the pleadings. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings in November 2002 and, while that motion was still pending, moved for summary judgment in January 2003. The first motion largely involved Equal Protection claims, while the second addressed Eighth Amendment claims. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment in April 2003 and, a week later, denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants timely filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of summary judgment and later timely filed a notice of appeal regarding the denial of judgment on the pleadings. Johnson argues that, under the circumstances [**50] of this case, the second-filed appeal does not qualify as an appealable [*528] decision under the collateral order doctrine.
Johnson acknowledges that, as a general matter, rulings denying qualified immunity--whether the ruling occurs at the pleadings stage or at summary judgment--are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine's exception to the final-judgment rule. Moreover, Johnson recognizes that the Supreme Court's decision in Behrens generally permits a public official to bring multiple qualified-immunity-based interlocutory appeals in the course of a single case. See 516 U.S. at 306-07 (permitting a public official to bring an interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion for summary judgment after the court of appeals had already affirmed and remanded on a previous interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss). Nonetheless, Johnson argues that those general principles are inapplicable to the unusual circumstances of this case. A motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings on qualified immunity grounds is in the usual case immediately appealable, Johnson reasons, only because the public official would otherwise lose his [**51] entitlement to be free from discovery; an appeal would do no good if it came only after the official had already been subjected to discovery during summary-judgment proceedings. But in this case, Johnson points out, (some) discovery has already occurred and the case has moved to the summary-judgment stage. The justification for the immediate appeal of the motion to dismiss is therefore lacking in this case, he contends.
We conclude that Johnson's motion is not well-taken. The Supreme Court has announced the general rule that orders denying qualified immunity are treated as "final" and appealable, and we think it improper to carve out an exception that responds to the precise timing of the district court's rulings. The defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Equal Protection claims effectively asserted an immunity from discovery, from suit, and from liability. That some discovery did take place as the proceedings moved into the summary-judgment stage does not make the court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings any less conclusive as regards the motion's request for immunity from trial and from liability. See Behrens, 516 U.S. at 306-09; [**52] Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526-28; cf. Matherne v. Wilson, 851 F.2d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that an official who failed to bring any interlocutory appeal could raise qualified immunity in a post-verdict appeal of the final judgment, even though the only aspect of his immunity that could still be vindicated at that stage was immunity from liability).
It also bears noting that the reason for the unusual course of proceedings cannot be attributed to any improper conduct or neglect on the part of the defendants. They properly filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that largely concerned the plaintiff's Equal Protection claims. While waiting for a ruling, the defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, which mostly involved the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims. There was nothing improper about how the defendants proceeded. The district court ruled first on the motion for summary judgment and later concluded (perhaps erroneously) that the earlier motion was therefore moot. Either motion would, by itself, ordinarily support an interlocutory appeal. This case presents no reason to muddle the otherwise clear right of a public official [**53] to bring an interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified [*529] immunity. n17 We will therefore consider the merits of the appeal.

n17 An instructive contrast with today's case is presented by Armstrong v. Texas State Board of Barber Examiners, 30 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 1994). There, the defendant's motion for summary judgment simply repeated the same pleadings-based arguments that the defendant had earlier raised in an unsuccessful motion to dismiss, which the defendant did not appeal. The panel concluded that the defendant was merely trying to circumvent the long-elapsed deadline for filing an appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss, and it dismissed the appeal. Id. at 644. In today's case, by contrast, the defendants' two motions rely on somewhat different grounds. Further, both appeals were timely filed, so it cannot be said that the defendants are trying to evade any deadline.



B. Analysis
The district court's denial of the defendants' Rule 12(c) motion for judgment [**54] on the pleadings is reviewed de novo. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 313 n.8. We accept the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 312-13. The motion to dismiss should not be granted unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that he could prove consistent with the complaint. Id. at 313.
At the outset, there is some dispute regarding whether Johnson's complaint should be measured against a heightened pleading standard rather than the normal Rule 8(a) standard, which requires only a "short and plain statement of the claim." In our decision in Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc), this court modified our prior practice of requiring heightened, detail-oriented pleading in § 1983 cases against public officials. After Schultea, a plaintiff no longer needs to "anticipate the [qualified [**55] immunity] defense in his complaint at the risk of dismissal under Rule 12." Id. at 1430. n18 The considerations that had led to the adoption of heightened pleading would henceforth be satisfied, the court held, through the device of a detailed Rule 7 reply, which the district court could order on the defendant's motion or sua sponte. Id. at 1433. No such Rule 7 reply was requested or ordered in this case, and the defendants have not appealed the district court's decision not to require one. As we have observed already, Johnson's complaint is quite detailed and factually explicit, and the defendants' answer was in the nature of a blanket denial.

n18 Schultea nonetheless cautioned that, in making his "short and plain statement of his complaint" under Rule 8, the plaintiff may not rest on "conclusions alone." 47 F.3d at 1433.

Notwithstanding that there was no Rule 7 reply, the defendants contend that the standards for Rule 7 replies should govern instead of the [**56] rules characteristic of notice-pleading under Rule 8(a). Their reasoning is that the local rules for the Northern District of Texas disfavor motions for a more definite statement and that, according to their own knowledge and their conversations with court personnel, motions for a Rule 7 reply are treated the same way. Johnson aptly responds to the defendants' contentions by citing cases in which courts in the Northern District have granted motions requesting Rule 7 replies. If the district court were flouting Schultea--which we presume our district courts would not do--the defendants should have filed a motion for a Rule 7 reply and appealed its denial. As they did [*530] not, we will apply the ordinary rules that govern the sufficiency of complaints.
2. Whether the complaint adequately stated a claim
Turning to the sufficiency of the complaint, the defendants make three arguments in support of their view that Johnson's pleadings failed to allege any Equal Protection violations. If Johnson has indeed failed to allege a violation, then of course there can be no violation of clearly established law that would overcome qualified immunity. See Siegert, 500 U.S. at 232. [**57] We consider each of the defendants' criticisms of the complaint in turn.
First, the defendants argue that Johnson's pleadings fail because he did not allege that the prison officials' classification decisions were not rationally related to any legitimate penological interest. It is important to point out that the defendants themselves have not attempted to articulate any legitimate interests that could justify giving less protection to homosexual inmates. Rather, their position in this case has consistently been that they did not in fact act on that basis. Nonetheless, they contend that there is a pleading requirement that the plaintiff must allege in his complaint the lack of any rational relationship to a legitimate penological interest. Although they are correct that the prisoner, not the state, bears the burden of proving that a challenged policy is invalid because it does not bear a rational relationship to legitimate objectives, Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 156 L. Ed. 2d 162, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003), that does not necessarily mean that the prisoner's complaint must allege the absence of such a relationship on pain of dismissal. Cf. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987) [**58] (stating that "there must be a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it" (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added)). In any event, Johnson's complaint does include statements that the defendants subjected him to "an arbitrary and irrational classification" and acted out of "hostility and animus." If a plaintiff's complaint must deny any rational relationship to legitimate penological aims even when those aims have not been articulated, Johnson's complaint satisfies the requirement.
Second, the defendants contend that, as mere comments alone do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, Johnson has not alleged that he has suffered any actionable discriminatory treatment. This argument misconstrues the nature of Johnson's claim. He does not contend that the comments made by certain defendants are themselves actionable. Rather, his complaint repeatedly alleges that he was denied protection because of his sexual orientation; the comments are relevant because they tend to reveal the defendants' reasons for their actions in denying him safekeeping. See Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 706 (5th Cir. 1999) [**59] (explaining that while an official's use of racial epithets "without harassment or some other conduct that deprives the victim of established rights . . . does not amount to an equal protection violation," the use of epithets is "strong evidence" that the official's actions are racially motivated).
Third, the defendants argue that the complaint fails to identify any non-homosexual prisoners who were similarly situated but were treated better. This argument is unavailing for several reasons. Johnson's complaint did contain general allegations to the effect that he qualified for safekeeping status but was treated differently than other vulnerable inmates because of his sexual orientation. [*531] He alleged, for instance, that the defendants "treated him differently than other similarly situated inmates based on their hostility and animus towards non-aggressive gay men." n19 It is unclear how a prisoner is supposed to possess identifying information regarding other inmates' treatment at the complaint stage. But, in any event, evidence of the type the defendants request is not essential to the claim. In most cases, a plaintiff lacks direct evidence of intentional discrimination, and he therefore [**60] will try to rely on evidence that two groups received different treatment, which can support an inference that the decisionmaker purposefully engaged in discrimination. But those kinds of inference-producing comparisons are unnecessary where the § 1983 plaintiff has direct evidence of discriminatory motive. See Wallace v. Tex. Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (5th Cir. 1996). Indeed, Johnson's complaint contains detailed allegations that, if true, would constitute direct evidence that the defendants treated Johnson differently in making their decisions and did so because of his status. n20 Leaving aside the question whether identifying information about other inmates would even be available to a plaintiff at the pleading stage, we do not believe that a plaintiff's complaint must plead the circumstantial case that the defendants are requesting. Cf. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-12, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002) (holding that a Title VII plaintiff need not plead facts showing a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas and remarking that it would be "incongruous to require a plaintiff, in order to survive a motion to [**61] dismiss, to plead more facts than he may ultimately need to prove to succeed on the merits if direct evidence of discrimination is discovered."). n21

n19 The defendants at one point assert that "all of Plaintiff's allegations regarding equal protection are made on 'information and belief,'" and they argue that such allegations are improper. It is inaccurate to say that "all" of the allegations are so phrased. The only "information and belief" allegations related to this subject are a few that concern whether the defendants have a "custom and practice" of denying safekeeping to vulnerable black and homosexual inmates. Further, "information and belief" pleadings are generally deemed permissible under the Federal Rules, especially in cases in which the information is more accessible to the defendant. See 5 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1224 (2d ed. 1990).

n20 Direct evidence includes statements revealing that an improper criterion--here sexual orientation--played a part in the decisionmaking process. See Fabela v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 329 F.3d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Propst v. Leapley, 886 F.2d 1068, 1071 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing prison official's statement that disciplinary committee is "inclined to be more lenient to blacks" as "highly probative" direct evidence of intentional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause). Johnson's complaint alleges that various defendants made remarks that reveal that they acted on improper criteria when they denied him safekeeping status. See, e.g., Complaint at P 33 ("We don't protect punks on this farm."), P 55 ("There is no reason why Black punks can't fight and survive in general population if they don't want to f***."), P 86 ("You like this . . . . I don't think you need no safekeeping.").
[**62]


n21 The defendants address Johnson's Equal Protection claims primarily in their brief in No. 03-10505, the appeal from the denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Naturally, the arguments in that brief--which we have been addressing in this part of the opinion--concern only Johnson's pleadings, not his summary-judgment evidence. At the end of their brief in No. 03-10455, the separate appeal from the denial of the motion for summary judgment, which mostly pertains to the Eighth Amendment, the defendants incorporate by reference the pleadings-based Equal Protection arguments from the other brief. The defendants' brief in No. 03-10455 then purports to argue, in a few sentences without any citations to authorities or the record, that Johnson has also failed to provide sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on his Equal Protection claims. This briefing on the evidentiary support for the Equal Protection claims (as opposed to the adequacy of the pleadings) is likely inadequate to present the issue. See L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs., Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994). In any event, the result would not differ if summary-judgment standards were applied to the Equal Protection claims. Johnson's affidavit recounts the same inflammatory statements alleged in his complaint, which constitute direct evidence. The defendants point out that a couple of the defendants--including Vitolo, a defendant at issue here--did not make such comments. Yet Johnson's affidavit says that Vitolo laughed during the meeting when one of the other UCC members said that Johnson did not need protection from rape because he liked having sex with men. Further, Johnson had filed a motion to compel disclosure of statistics on safekeeping that might provide the circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination that the defendants fault him for not employing. Johnson's response to the motion for summary judgment included a Rule 56(f) affidavit that alerted the district court to the pendency of his request for this information.

[**63] [*532] 3. Clearly established law
The defendants contend that the law is not clearly established regarding (as they phrase the question presented in this case) "whether the use of race or sexual orientation as a factor in state prison classification decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause, when the use is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest." No Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit case, they say, has considered the extent to which sexual orientation can be considered in housing classifications.
The defendants' manner of phrasing the issue is inapt. First, while it is somewhat uncertain to what extent sexual orientation can legitimately be taken into account in fashioning prison housing policies, n22 the defendants in this case deny that they took Johnson's race and orientation into account. That is, they do not say that such status-based decisionmaking would be justified because of legitimate countervailing penological aims--as they would need to say in a case involving a policy of housing all black or all homosexual inmates together--but rather they say that they made their decisions based on a status-neutral determination that Johnson was not unusually [**64] vulnerable.

n22 We observe that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether a prison's policy of segregating incoming prisoners by race for a period of sixty days violates the Equal Protection Clause. See Johnson v. California, 321 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted 540 U.S. 1217, 158 L. Ed. 2d 151, 124 S. Ct. 1505 (Mar. 1, 2004).

Second, if they actually did deny Johnson protection because of his homosexuality, as Johnson alleges and as we must assume for purposes of analysis, that decision would certainly not effectuate any legitimate interest. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833 ("Gratuitously allowing the beating or rape of one prisoner by another serves no legitimate penological objective." (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is clearly established that all prison inmates are entitled to reasonable protection from sexual assault. See id. at 832-34. (As it happens, the abused inmate in Farmer was a feminine-looking preoperative [**65] male-to-female transsexual.) Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has recognized sexual orientation as a suspect classification [or protected group]; nevertheless, a state violates the Equal Protection Clause if it disadvantages homosexuals for reasons lacking any rational relationship to legitimate governmental aims. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631- 32, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996). The defendants have not attempted to argue that according homosexuals less protection than other [*533] inmates would advance any legitimate aim. Thus, we conclude that Johnson has alleged conduct that would be unreasonable in light of law that was clearly established at the time of the alleged events.
V. CONCLUSION
Johnson's motions to dismiss Nos. 03-10455 and 03-10505 are DENIED. We REVERSE the district court's judgment to the extent that it concluded that Johnson had exhausted: race-based Equal Protection claims; claims against defendants Paul and Willingham; claims against Bright and Kuyava as regards the September 6, 2000 UCC; claims against Mooneyham and Vitolo as regards the December 13, 2000 UCC; claims against Bowman, Boyle, and Kuyava as regards the February 14, 2001 UCC; [**66] and claims against Vitolo and Wathen as regards the February 21, 2001 UCC. See supra Part II.D. Turning to the exhausted claims, we also REVERSE the district court's judgment to the extent that it denied qualified immunity to Executive Director Johnson, Treon, and Wright. The district court's judgment is otherwise AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to the district court, for dismissal of the claims listed above and for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Each party shall bear its own costs.

MOTIONS DENIED; AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED