Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to Arkansas Division of Correction officials in Carolyn Arnett’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that, viewing the facts in Arnett’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that the officials were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of sexual abuse by a prison chaplain, and that two defendants could be liable for failure to supervise. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges directed solely at the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s factual findings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Eighth Circuit had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity.
- Whether, viewing the facts accepted by the district court in the light most favorable to Arnett, the defendants' alleged conduct violated the Eighth Amendment by showing deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of sexual assault.
- Whether Faust and Budnik were entitled to summary judgment on Arnett's failure-to-supervise claims because the record did not establish supervisory authority, deliberate indifference, remedial inaction, and causation.
Holdings
- The court had jurisdiction to review the legal question whether the facts accepted by the district court established an Eighth Amendment violation, but lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the evidentiary sufficiency of the district court's factual findings and inferences.
- The district court properly denied qualified immunity and summary judgment on Arnett's failure-to-protect claims because, viewing the facts favorably to Arnett, a reasonable jury could find that Faust, Budnik, and Dykes were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of DeWitt's repeated sexual assaults.
- The district court properly denied summary judgment on the failure-to-supervise claims because, viewing the record favorably to Arnett, a reasonable jury could find that Faust and Budnik had authority to supervise or direct DeWitt, knew of a pattern of unconstitutional conduct, were deliberately indifferent, failed to take adequate remedial action, and caused Arnett's injury.
Key quotations
“Qualified immunity, however, “is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.”” (at 3)
“To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) the presented facts “make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right,” and (2) “that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant[s’] alleged misconduct.”” (at 4)
“For 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.”” (at 5)
“This court cannot “cast aside the district court’s factual findings, analyze the factual record, and resolve genuine factual disputes against the non-moving party.”” (at 8)
Factual background
Carolyn Arnett was incarcerated at the maximum-security McPherson Unit and worked as a clerk in chaplain Kenneth DeWitt's office. From 2010 through 2014, DeWitt sexually assaulted Arnett weekly in his office at a regularly scheduled time, and he similarly assaulted two other inmates. The record included evidence of prior complaints, recurring early-morning visits, obstructed office windows, Department of Justice concerns about sexual abuse at the unit, and ADC policy violations. The district court found facts from which a jury could infer that officials Faust, Budnik, and Dykes knew of or were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of DeWitt's abuse, and that Faust and Budnik had supervisory authority over DeWitt.
Procedural history
Arnett, an inmate, sued officials of the Arkansas Division of Correction in their individual capacities under § 1983. The district court partly granted and partly denied the defendants' summary-judgment motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact concerning Arnett's failure-to-protect claims against Faust, Budnik, and Dykes and her failure-to-supervise claims against Faust and Budnik. The defendants appealed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.