Cindy Laine Franklin v. Chris Curry
738 F.3d 1246
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Franklin, a pretrial detainee at Shelby County Jail, alleges Corrections Officer Michael Gay sexually assaulted her during booking and later forced oral sex in her cell. Gay resigned and was investigated.
- Franklin sued Gay and six supervisory jail officials (Sheriff Curry, Samaniego, George, Corbell, Fondren, Burchfield) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual capacities.
- The Supervisory Defendants moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion, finding allegations of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk sufficient to state a claim.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews the denial de novo and framed the question as whether Franklin adequately pleaded a constitutional violation to overcome qualified immunity.
- The court found the complaint contained mostly conclusory allegations (e.g., "knew or should have known," "deliberate indifference") and only a few nonconclusory facts: Gay’s verbal harassment, the assault on Franklin, and prior sexual misconduct by Gay toward other detainees.
- The court reversed, holding the complaint failed to plausibly allege supervisory deliberate indifference or subjective knowledge by each supervisor, so qualified immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Franklin pleaded a constitutional violation (deliberate indifference) by supervisors | Franklin alleged supervisors knew or should have known of Gay’s pattern and were deliberately indifferent | Supervisors argued complaint lacks allegations of their subjective knowledge or conduct showing deliberate indifference | Court: No constitutional violation pleaded; allegations are conclusory and insufficient |
| Whether "knew or should have known" suffices for deliberate indifference | Such wording shows notice and a causal connection from policy/custom | Defendants: Constructive knowledge is insufficient; deliberate indifference requires actual subjective awareness | Court: Rejected constructive knowledge; deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge and drawing the inference of risk |
| Whether conclusory allegations survive Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard | Franklin maintained her pleadings adequately alleged facts supporting supervisory liability | Defendants: Pleading must include factual matter making liability plausible, not labels or formulaic recitation | Court: Struck conclusory allegations; remaining facts do not plausibly show each supervisor’s subjective awareness or deliberate indifference |
| Whether denial of qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss was proper | Franklin argued the complaint pleaded clearly established rights violated | Supervisors argued entitlement to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation was pleaded | Court: Reversed denial; supervisors entitled to qualified immunity because no plausible constitutional violation was alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading rule: separate conclusory legal statements from factual allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2013) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge and disregard)
- Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for qualified immunity review)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability principles)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (need to isolate precise constitutional violation in § 1983 suits)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or those knowingly violating the law)