United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015-12-28
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; jail inmate raped by another inmate sues two detention officers and sheriff for Eighth Amendment failure to protect; defendants' interlocutory appeal from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity; two appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, one reversed; result: mixed; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsSupervisory liability of the sheriff (notice + failure to respond) was the issue he tried to raise; not reviewable. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: Detention Officer Thomas; subject: party=Detention Officer Thomas Court speaks of "any violation of the Eighth Amendment she may have suffered" and decides only the second prong; yet it finds as undisputed that Thomas lacked subjective knowledge of the risk, the core of deliberate indifference. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: triable; party: Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz; subject: party=Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz The DISTRICT COURT's ruling, narrated but not reviewed (both appeals dismissed). As to Johnson: she unlocked the holding-cell door in view of an unrestrained male inmate, left without re-locking, securing him, or checking on the shackled plaintiff. As to Glanz: a jury could infer notice from prior staff-on-inmate sexual assaults in the understaffed, unsurveilled medical unit, and no remedial response. The one fact line is plaintiff's version as this court restates it (moved in v1 from the jurisdiction block, where it showed that Johnson's appeal disputed the facts); v0 did not quote the block-quoted district-court findings. | failure-to-protect/inmate-left-unsecured-with-unrestrained-inmate-in-understaffed-unit | Ms. Henderson asserted in her summary judgment briefing and asserts on appeal that DO Johnson knew the door to the tub room was unlocked when she left the medical unit hallway. DO Johnson’s argument does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of this fact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [22254:22514] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsSheriff did not appeal in his official capacity. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Detention Officer Thomas; subject: party=Detention Officer Thomas Decided on the clearly-established prong only, but the court first overrides the district court's fact finding (risk awareness "blatantly contradicted by the record"), which effectively negates deliberate indifference. Violation of jail double-staffing policy is not a constitutional violation. | not-clearly-established/officer-left-post-without-subjective-knowledge-of-risk | When a gurney was requested from the medical unit, DO Thomas left to deliver it, though having an inmate deliver it would have been permissible under Jail policy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [3750:3912] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.The record indicates that, when DO Thomas left to deliver the gurney for the medical emergency, he knew only that Ms. Henderson was in the tub room and that DO Johnson was in the medical unit outside the tub room.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [27843:28056] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.DO Thomas testified that he believed the door to the tub room was locked when he left. Ms. Henderson presented no evidence to the contrary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [28057:28196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Thus, at summary judgment, we must grant qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [31902:32154] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.the Supreme Court has admonished “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [34744:34847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Ms. Henderson has provided no authority clearly establishing that an officer violates the Eighth Amendment when that officer, as here with DO Thomas, has no subjective knowledge of risk of assault to an inmate, leaves to attend to a medical emergency, and does so believing the inmate is in a locked room under the guard of another officer.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [35138:35478] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Moreover, although DO Thomas may have violated Jail policy by leaving the medical unit in the care of only DO Johnson, Ms. Henderson offers no authority to show this was a clearly established constitutional violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [35479:35696] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural party: Detention Officer Johnson; subject: party=Detention Officer Johnson Appeal dismissed for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction (challenge to evidence sufficiency); district court's denial of immunity stands unreviewed. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural party: Sheriff Glanz (individual capacity); subject: party=Sheriff Glanz (individual capacity) Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; district court's denial of immunity stands unreviewed. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz (their appeals); subject: party=Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz (their appeals) Not an element of the statute: Johnson v. Jones bar on interlocutory review of fact-sufficiency rulings. "not-satisfied" here = no appellate jurisdiction. | qualified-immunity-appeal/challenge-to-evidence-sufficiency | Instead of accepting these facts as true or viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson, Defendants argue Sheriff Glanz had no notice of a risk of assault because there had been no documented instances of inmate-on-inmate assault in the Jail.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [26149:26410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [19245:19385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.We lack jurisdiction over Sheriff Glanz’s interlocutory appeal because it “would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [27363:27529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Because it instéad challenges the district court’s factual determinations, we lack jurisdiction over DO Johnson’s appeal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [22132:22253] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; party: Detention Officer Thomas (his appeal); subject: party=Detention Officer Thomas (his appeal) | qualified-immunity-appeal/district-court-facts-blatantly-contradicted-by-record | “Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [21067:21312] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.These undisputed record facts blatantly contradict the district court’s factual determination that DO Thomas could have been subjectively aware of a substantial risk of bodily harm to Ms. Henderson.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [28197:28395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [19245:19385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).
interpretation
“Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
“Second, when the ‘version of events’ the district court holds a reasonable jury could credit ‘is blatantly contradicted by the record,’ we may assess the case based on our own de novo view of which facts a reasonable jury could accept as true.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [21067:21312] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Under Johnson v. Jones (515 U.S. 304 (1995)) and Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372 (2007)), a court of appeals on interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity reviews abstract questions of law (taking the district court's assumed facts as true unless blatantly contradicted by the record).
interpretation
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [19245:19385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Procedural preservation rule applied in § 1983 appeals.
interpretation
Thus, at summary judgment, we must grant qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
Thus, at summary judgment, we must grant qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [31902:32154] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Two-prong test (which courts may address in either order under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)): (1) whether the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether the unlawfulness of the conduct was "clearly established" at the time so as to give fair warning (Hope v. Pelzer; Mullenix v. Luna).
interpretation
the Supreme Court has admonished “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,”
/f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
the Supreme Court has admonished “not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [34744:34847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40.Two-prong test (which courts may address in either order under Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)): (1) whether the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) whether the unlawfulness of the conduct was "clearly established" at the time so as to give fair warning (Hope v. Pelzer; Mullenix v. Luna).