Dr. Douglas Appel appeals from the district court’s order denying him qualified *464 immunity. The plaintiff, Charles James Pompey, sued Dr. Appel under section 1983 for deliberate indifference to his medical needs while incarcerated, as proscribed by the Eight Amendment’s right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. The district court denied Appel’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Because the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, we vacate and remand.

In reviewing an officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, a court first determines whether the plaintiff alleges a violation of a constitutional right. Here Pompey alleges deliberate indifference, for which the appropriate mens rea is subjective recklessness. 1 That is, “[f]or an official to act with deliberate indifference, the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” 2

Yet the district court found a constitutional violation based on objective recklessness, ruling that Appel knew or should have known that Pompey faced a substantial risk of harm. This error improperly broadened the scope of Appel’s liability. We VACATE and REMAND.