Castillo v. Day
790 F.3d 1013
10th Cir.2015Background
- Five women formerly incarcerated at Hillside Community Corrections Center allege they were sexually harassed and assaulted while working off‑site at the Oklahoma Governor’s Mansion under supervision of non‑DOC employee Anthony Bobelu (and another Mansion employee, Humphries). No Hillside guard accompanied them on the assignment.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming multiple defendants including two Hillside guards in their individual capacities: Charlotte Day and Mary Pavliska. Several defendants were dismissed; summary judgment motions followed.
- The district court granted summary judgment to most defendants but denied it as to Day and Pavliska, concluding a jury could find they were deliberately indifferent to a known substantial risk of serious harm.
- Key factual allegations relevant to Day and Pavliska: inmates reported sexual abuse at the Mansion to Pavliska (Reeder on Jan. 12, 2009; Garell in Feb. 2009); Pavliska testified she reported Reeder’s report to Day, while Day denied hearing it; Day allegedly made a remark to Garell referencing an ex‑inmate’s relationship with Bobelu.
- Day appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Tenth Circuit dismissed Day’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it raised primarily disputed factual sufficiency issues. The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity as to Pavliska to the extent it presented legal questions, but dismissed portions challenging factual sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity is reviewable when denial rests on disputed factual sufficiency (Day) | Plaintiffs contend evidence supports jury inference Day knew of misconduct. | Day argues evidence insufficient to show she knew of a risk; raises fact‑based challenge to denial. | Court: Dismissed Day’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction—appeal attacked evidence sufficiency, not a pure legal question. |
| Whether a prison guard can be liable under the Eighth Amendment for failing to protect inmates from sexual abuse by another guard (Pavliska) | Plaintiffs: guard’s deliberate indifference to known risk of sexual abuse by another guard violates Eighth Amendment. | Pavliska: cannot be liable for acts of non‑subordinate guards and lacked authority/knowledge. | Court: A guard can be liable for failing to take reasonable steps to abate a known substantial risk created by another guard; rejected argument that liability requires subordinate relationship. |
| Whether Plaintiffs alleged objectively serious harm and satisfied deliberate indifference standard | Plaintiffs: sexual assaults and harassment satisfy objective component; evidence shows failure to act after reports. | Pavliska originally argued conduct not sufficiently serious and lacked subjective knowledge. | Court: Plaintiffs conceded objective component; court held deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge. To extent issue is legal, denial affirmed; challenges to factual showing of subjective knowledge are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal. |
| Application of continuing‑violations doctrine to claims against Pavliska | Plaintiffs: liability limited to failures after Pavliska learned of Reeder’s Jan. 12, 2009 report. | Pavliska argued she cannot be liable for acts before she received notice. | Court: Plaintiffs concede, and district court’s denial is premised on events after Jan. 12, 2009; doctrine issue irrelevant to denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (summary‑judgment standard when construing facts favorably to nonmovant)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (limitations on interlocutory appeals of summary‑judgment denials in qualified immunity cases)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (prison officials liable only for deliberate indifference to substantial risk)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified‑immunity analytical framework)
- Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (Eighth Amendment failure‑to‑protect can be actionable where official knew or should have known risk)
- Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205 (sexual abuse by prison staff satisfies objective component)
- Keith v. Koerner, 707 F.3d 1185 (deliberate indifference to sexual abuse by prison employees violates Eighth Amendment)
- Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (denial of qualified immunity where officials acted with deliberate indifference to known gang threat)
- Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155 (deliberate indifference has objective and subjective components)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits on interlocutory appeals challenging evidentiary sufficiency)