Castillo v. Jones-Cooper
660 F. App'x 614
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Five former Hillside Correctional inmates (Castillo, Garell, Gaytan, Reeder, Robinson) participated in an offsite prison work program doing grounds work at the Oklahoma Governor’s Mansion between 2008–2009 and alleged sexual harassment/assault by Mansion employees.
- Mansion groundskeeper Anthony Bobelu was the inmates’ offsite supervisor; no DOC guards accompanied inmates at the Mansion.
- Prior to May 2009, DOC/Capitol Park officials received scattered complaints about Bobelu (a temporary employee’s remark in 2007, observations of one-on-one contact with inmates in 2009), but investigations did not produce disciplinary action until late May–June 2009.
- On May 29, 2009, Gaytan reported unwelcome sexual advances by Bobelu to Bud Dolan, who immediately changed Bobelu’s assignment and notified DOC; a subsequent investigation led to Bobelu’s termination and recommendation for prosecution.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants (Dolan, DOC supervisors Ruby Jones-Cooper and John Larsen) were deliberately indifferent to a risk that inmates would be sexually assaulted; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on qualified immunity grounds.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to show defendants had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of sexual assault before Gaytan’s May 29 report, and thus could not overcome qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dolan was deliberately indifferent to risk of inmate sexual assault | Dolan knew of multiple prior inappropriate incidents by Bobelu and should have done more than verbal warnings | Dolan lacked actual knowledge that Bobelu posed a risk of sexual assault until Gaytan’s May 29 report; prior incidents did not show such a risk | Dolan entitled to qualified immunity; no evidence he actually knew of substantial risk before Gaytan’s report |
| Whether Jones‑Cooper’s training decisions created unconstitutional risk | Eight hours training for PPWP supervisors was inadequate and caused vulnerability | Basic prohibition on sexual assault is obvious; more training would not have prevented abuse; failure‑to‑train claim requires an underlying constitutional violation by trainee | Jones‑Cooper entitled to qualified immunity; no underlying constitutional violation by Dolan and training level not clearly deficient |
| Whether Larsen is liable for failure to train | Larsen failed to train/supervise properly, causing the assaults | Same defenses: no actual knowledge by supervisors; failure‑to‑train claim fails absent constitutional violation by trainee | Larsen entitled to qualified immunity; plaintiffs produced no evidence of actual knowledge or causation |
| Whether continuing‑violations theory affects deliberate‑indifference analysis | Plaintiffs contend ongoing incidents create a continuing violation making earlier acts actionable | Court assumed without deciding the theory applied but found no genuine dispute of material fact on actual knowledge either way | Court did not rely on continuing‑violations framing; qualified immunity affirmed based on lack of actual knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (government officials entitled to immunity from suit in qualified immunity context)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge and disregard of substantial risk)
- Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 523 F.3d 1187 (summary judgment review standard)
- Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152 (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (no need for specific training to know sexual assault is criminal/inappropriate)
- Flores v. Cty. of L.A., 758 F.3d 1154 (inclusion of obvious prohibitions in manuals unlikely to prevent assaults)
- Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069 (failure‑to‑train claim requires showing training deficiency caused constitutional violation)
- Thomson v. Salt Lake Cty., 584 F.3d 1304 (principles for assessing failure to train in civil rights context)
- Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 (causation requirement for municipal/failure‑to‑train liability)