An incarcerated man, allegedly attacked by other prisoners because of his status as a sex offender, cannot sue corrections officials for failing to protect him, a federal judge ruled last month.

Even though Emanuel Pittman reportedly told multiple prison officials that other inmates were threatening his life, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix explained it was not enough that the defendants knew there was “merely” a risk to Pittman. Instead, there had to be a “substantial” risk of harm.

“Plaintiff cannot rely solely on the allegation that they should have perceived a substantial risk from these conversations,” she wrote in an April 11 order.

According to his lawsuit, when Pittman arrived at Limon Correctional Facility in August 2021, he told a prison employee of rumors that sex offenders “got beat up” or were extorted at the facility. Case manager Jeremy Kahn was present for that conversation, and Pittman subsequently talked with Kahn about the purported threats to his life.

“His reply was you & your kind just want something to be mad about,” wrote Pittman, who represented himself in the lawsuit. 

Pittman also met with case manager James Gillis and Lt. Michelle Foreman, where he reiterated his life was in danger. Gillis and Foreman allegedly told him to “give them some names or return to the pod.” Pittman did not name his potential assailants. He was subsequently attacked and received a black eye and a “permanent mark.”

In his lawsuit, Pittman alleged Kahn, Gillis and Foreman violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. To prevail, Pittman needed to show he received a relatively serious injury and that prison staff knew of, but disregarded, a substantial risk of harm.

The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing Pittman refused to give any details that would enable them to protect him from otherwise-generic threats.

“Plaintiff did not provide Defendants with any credible, actionable information that his safety was threatened before the assault took place,” wrote the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. Pittman responded that the officials knew, broadly, of an elevated risk for sex offenders and that “snitching” would also put a target on his back.

Mix agreed with the government that Pittman’s “vague” allegations, though communicated multiple times, failed to alert the officials that they needed to protect him.

“Defendant Kahn was plausibly put on notice that a risk of harm existed, but not that a substantial risk of harm existed,” she wrote. Also, “Plaintiff chose to leave the meeting rather than provide Defendants Gillis and Foreman further information regarding the threats made against his life.”

Pittman is currently appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit.

The case is Pittman v. Kahn et al.