The inmate’s estate sued under Section 1983, claiming that this indifference violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants qualified immunity.
Cato filed an amicus brief asking the Tenth Circuit to reverse that decision. Cato’s brief notes that neither Section 1983’s text nor the early history of constitutional torts justifies qualified immunity. It also erodes trust as well as the rule of law, thereby harming the very government officials it supposedly exists to protect. The Tenth Circuit should not expand qualified immunity by requiring plaintiffs to find a different case with an identical rights violation before their own constitutional rights can be vindicated.