Ricardo McClinton v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

── Ricardo McClinton v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10654 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 1 of 20 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10654 ____________________ RICARDO MCCLINTON, Surviving Parents and Co-Administrators of the Estate of deceased Jamari McClinton, DORIS JONES, Surviving Parents and Co-Administrators of the Estate of deceased Jamari McClinton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus WARDEN, BALDWIN STATE PRISON, COUNSELOR JARVIS PRIMUS, Baldwin State Prison, WARDEN, PHILLIPS STATE PRISON, ELADIO ABREU, NOLITA MOSS, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-10654 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 2 of 20 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10654 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00109-MTT ____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,∗ District Judge. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: While Jamari McClinton was incarcerated in Phillips State Prison in Georgia (“Phillips”), he stabbed a high-ranking member of the Bloods criminal gang during an altercation. Thereafter, the warden of Phillips placed McClinton in protective custody and requested McClinton’s transfer to another prison for his protection. The transfer was approved, and McClinton was sent to Baldwin State Prison (“Baldwin”). After arriving at Baldwin, McClinton was placed in the general prison population where another prisoner, a Bloods member, later stabbed him to death. McClinton’s parents and estate (the “plaintiffs”) sued five officials in the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”) alleging that each violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. They alleged each official was deliberately indifferent to the risk that McClinton faced at Baldwin by failing to ensure that McClinton was properly protected upon his transfer. ∗ Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. USCA11 Case: 25-10654 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 3 of 20 25-10654 Opinion of the Court 3 The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed each claim. The district court found that each defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because the defendants did not violate any clearly established law. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court misconstrued this Court’s en banc precedent in Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc). Per the plaintiffs, the district court applied a higher standard for determining whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent than that required by Wade and by the Supreme Court in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). By applying the proper standard, they argue, material disputes of fact remain as to each defendant, and this Court should therefore reverse t