Charles Wade v. Gordon Lewis

This Court has repeatedly held that government officials lack qualified immunity when prior decisions provide “fair warning” of constitutional violations. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740–41 (2002). Long before the events leading to this case, the Eleventh Circuit held that correctional officers violate the Constitution by delaying medical treatment for a prisoner’s “bleeding cut” and ignoring the presence of “blood on the floor and on his coat and shirt.” Aldridge v. Montgomery, 753 F.2d 970, 972–73 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). But the Eleventh Circuit held here that Aldridge failed to clearly establish the unconstitutionality of ignoring a prisoner’s cut that “leak[ed] blood . . . all over the place,” relying on distinctions between a “pool of blood” and a “path of blood,” as well as between a cut above the right eye and a similarly sized cut to the right hand. The question presented is: Whether this Court’s qualified immunity doctrine demands a nearly identical fact pattern before a case can clearly establish the law—as the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits have held—or whether a case can provide “fair warning” despite some factual variation—as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held.