Doe v. District of Columbia
215 F. Supp. 3d 62
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Jane Doe, a young transgender woman on hormone therapy, was housed at D.C. Jail on protective-custody/"house-alone" status but was transferred to North One on July 16–17, 2012.
- Inmate Leonard Johnson had a documented history of institutional violence and had raped a prior cellmate months earlier; he was housed in North One the night of July 17–18, 2012.
- On the night in question, Lt. Gladden ordered (and Cpl. Ogu executed) placing Johnson into Doe’s cell twice (around 1:50 a.m. and again at ~3:00 a.m.); Johnson remained with Doe overnight.
- Surveillance footage and testimony show minimal meaningful security checks between ~4:00 a.m. and 7:47 a.m.; Doe was raped twice overnight and injuries consistent with anal rape were recorded at the hospital.
- North One Post Orders required 30-minute visual security checks and compliance-officer approval for housing reassignments; defendants did not obtain compliance approval and performed few visual checks.
- Doe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect) against multiple officers and the District; summary judgment was granted as unopposed for four officers but denied as to Gladden and Ogu.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect Doe from sexual assault | Doe: placing a vulnerable transgender inmate with a known predator and then leaving the cell largely unchecked posed a substantial risk and constituted deliberate indifference | Gladden/Ogu: deny actual knowledge of risk, assert they had no duty/need to contact compliance officer, and argue lack of clear violation | Court: disputed facts (transgender status, house-alone notice, Johnson's history, lack of security checks) permit a reasonable jury to find an Eighth Amendment violation; denial of summary judgment as to Gladden and Ogu |
| Whether Defendants had the requisite subjective knowledge (deliberate indifference) | Doe: defendants knew or should have known—Doe's appearance, "house-alone" notation, training, and obvious lack of checks make risk obvious | Defendants: deny knowing risk, limited access to records, no recollection of the night | Court: factual disputes (and circumstantial evidence) allow a jury to infer actual knowledge and disregard of risk |
| Whether defendants’ conduct was a reasonable response to the risk (abating measures) | Doe: alternatives existed (leave Johnson in original cell, use empty cells or holding cage, perform checks) showing failure to take reasonable measures | Defendants: no substantive record showing they acted reasonably; argument cursorily raised | Court: defendants failed to show they responded reasonably; triable issue remains |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (was the right clearly established?) | Doe: right to be protected from sexual assault by other inmates was clearly established by Farmer and subsequent cases | Defendants: argued no clearly defined Eighth Amendment right was violated | Court: Right was clearly established prior to July 2012; qualified immunity unavailable at summary judgment stage for Gladden and Ogu |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect framework; deliberate indifference standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (recognizing Farmer’s holding applied to transgender inmates and that the right to be free from sexual abuse was well established)
- Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (Eighth Amendment protection against sexual assault; Farmer parallels relied upon)
- Makdessi v. Fields, 789 F.3d 126 (discussing deliberate indifference and limits of "head in the sand" defenses)