Deliberate Indifference

What It Is

Deliberate indifference is the standard for several types of § 1983 claims. It means a government official knew about a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to act on that knowledge. It’s more than negligence, but less than intent.

Where It Applies

• Conditions of confinement (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment) — Jail officials who know an inmate needs medical care and ignore it
• Failure to protect — Officials who know of a specific threat to someone in custody and do nothing
• Failure to train/supervise (Monell) — A municipality that knows its training is inadequate and doesn’t fix it
• Pretrial detainee claims (Fourteenth Amendment) — Similar to Eighth Amendment but the standard may be objective in some circuits after Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)

The Two Components

After Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994):

1. Objective: The risk must be “sufficiently serious” — an objectively serious deprivation
2. Subjective: The official must have actually known about the risk — not just should have known

This subjective component is what makes deliberate indifference claims hard. You need evidence the official was aware of the risk. Circumstantial evidence works — if the risk was obvious, a jury can infer the official knew — but you still have to show it.

The Practical Problem

Defendants typically argue they didn’t know. Your job is to show the risk was so obvious they had to know, or to find evidence (emails, reports, grievances, prior incidents) proving actual knowledge.

Key Cases

• Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) — Defined the subjective standard
• Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) — Established deliberate indifference for medical care claims
• City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) — Failure to train requires deliberate indifference
• Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) — Objective standard for pretrial detainee excessive force (circuit split on whether this extends to conditions claims)