Cody Walton v. Robert Dawson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9304

Walton, a pretrial detainee in Macon County Jail, was sexually assaulted by inmate Flennory after doors to cells were not locked at night.
Flennory, a large, violent registered sex offender, had prior convictions and had just pled guilty to forcible rape days before the Walton incident.
There was an unwritten policy to lock cell doors at night, but evidence shows it was routinely ignored.
Walton reported fear and injury after the assault and was treated at a local hospital.
Moore, the jail administrator, and Bilinski, the night jailer, faced claims of deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to train or supervise, while Dawson, the sheriff, faced related immunity issues.
The district court denied qualified immunity to Moore, but denied it to Dawson; Walton appealed under collateral order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore is liable for failure to train Walton under the Fourteenth Amendment	Walton argues Moore’s failure to train/bind jail staff violated due process	Moore contests personal liability and argues insufficient evidence of his knowledge	Moore not entitled to qualified immunity; Walton may prevail against Moore on merits
Whether Sheriff Dawson is protected by qualified immunity	Walton contends Dawson knew or should have known about risks and failed to act	Dawson argues lack of individualized knowledge defeats liability	Dawson is entitled to qualified immunity; no evidence showed Dawson personally knew of the risk
What standard governs deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment in this context	Walton relies on Farmer's subjective standard for supervisory liability	Moore argues an objective Canton standard should apply for municipalities	Court applied Farmer's subjective deliberate indifference standard to Walton's Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-train claim

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (requires knowledge of and disregard for a substantial risk of harm (subjective standard))
Cant on v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (establishes an objective culpability standard for some municipal accountability)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (recognizes minimum constitutional standards for confinement and safety)
Holden v. Himer, 663 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2011) (discusses applicability of subjective vs. objective standards for pretrial detainees)
Wade v. Haynes, 663 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1981) (case involving failure to protect where inmate was assaulted)
Newman v. Holmes, 122 F.3d 650 (8th Cir. 1997) (unlocked cell door leading to attack case supporting duty to protect)
Berry v. Sherman, 365 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial risk analysis where inmate failed to express fear)
Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2008) (discusses duty to protect inmates from violence)