context: Finally, insufficient protection of a prisoner resulting in harm inflicted by other inmates may also violate the prisoner's due process rights.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: right to personal security protected by substantive due process and not extinguished by imprisonment
citation_a.sentence: Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2457-58, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (right to personal security protected by substantive due process and not extinguished by imprisonment); Escamilla v. City of Santa Ana, 796 F.2d 266, 269-70 (9th Cir.1986) (police have a duty to protect individuals if there is a “custodial relationship”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 632 F.2d 1096, 1101
citation_b.parenthetical: if prison officials know of pervasive risk of harm to prisoner and fail to protect that prisoner, prisoner has a viable section 1983 claim for violation of his constitutional rights
citation_b.sentence: See Orpiano v. Johnson, 632 F.2d 1096, 1101 (4th Cir.1980) (if prison officials know of pervasive risk of harm to prisoner and fail to protect that prisoner, prisoner has a viable section 1983 claim for violation of his constitutional rights), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 929, 101 S.Ct. 1387, 67 L.Ed.2d 361 (1981).