Baray v. Gallagher, 1:15-cv-00670

Baray sued Gallagher, Powell, and Logan County BOCC under §1983 for sexual assault at LCDC between April–June 2013; Baray amended to replace Logan County with BOCC and dropped state-law claims.
Plaintiff alleges Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, including failure to protect, danger creation, and failure to train/supervise; Monell liability asserted against Powell and BOCC.
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing failure to state a cognizable §1983 claim and lack of supervisory/municipal liability.
Court analyzes whether Eighth Amendment framework applies, and whether Powell’s supervisory and BOCC’s municipal liability are adequately alleged.
Court ultimately finds no sufficient personal involvement or deliberate indifference by Powell, and no cognizable municipal policy or failure-to-train claim against BOCC; recommends dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eighth Amendment governs Baray’s §1983 claims against Powell	Baray alleges Eighth Amendment violation via supervisor’s indifference	Powell argued lack of personal involvement and no violation	Eighth Amendment framework applicable; no personal involvement shown for Powell
Whether Powell can be liable in his individual capacity for supervisory liability	Powell knew of risk and disregarded it	Plaintiff failed to show Powell’s knowledge of a substantial risk and disregard	No cognizable supervisory liability against Powell
Whether the BOCC can be liable under Monell for inadequate training or supervision	Bryson factors show deliberate indifference (training/supervision)	Plaintiff failed to allege a formal policy or actual notice; no deliberate indifference shown	No municipal liability; insufficient allegations of policy or deliberate indifference
Whether Powell is entitled to qualified immunity	Powell violated clearly established rights	Qualified immunity applies absent clearly established violation	Qualified immunity not reached due to failure to state a claim against Powell
Whether Baray’s claims against Powell/BOCC could be properly pursued as Monell claims	Existence of policy or custom causing injury	No evidence of policy/custom; no causal link shown	Monell claim insufficient; dismissed

Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008) (deliberate indifference standard for supervisory liability in jail context)
Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993) (inmate rights to bodily integrity; Eighth Amendment standards apply to prison guards)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies due process rights in confinement contexts; relevance to Eighth Amendment framework)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (Due Process does not create constitutional rights where an explicit constitutional protection exists)
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1994) (selects the explicit textual amendment as guide for analysis when applicable)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)