Durkee v. Minor, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20411

James Durkee, a pretrial detainee at Summit County Detention Center, was assaulted and suffered a facial fracture after fellow inmate Ramos ran from the booking area into an unlocked visitation room and attacked him.
Ramos had a documented history of aggressive behavior and prior threats toward staff and other inmates; staff had issued a notice that Durkee and Ramos must not attend programs together or pass in hallways.
Deputy/Sergeant Ron Hochmuth escorted Ramos back from court, unshackled him in the booking area adjacent to a professional visitation room with windows; Durkee was inside that visitation room meeting a counselor and claims he saw Hochmuth and Ramos prior to the assault.
The district court denied qualified immunity to both Hochmuth and Sheriff John Minor (in their individual capacities); defendants appealed the denial.
The Tenth Circuit treats the district court’s credited factual findings as true for review of the pretrial denial of qualified immunity; it affirmed denial as to Hochmuth but reversed as to Minor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sergeant Hochmuth is entitled to qualified immunity for failing to prevent an inmate attack	Durkee: Hochmuth knew Ramos posed a substantial risk to him and unshackling Ramos near Durkee was deliberate indifference	Hochmuth: He lacked actual knowledge that Durkee was present/visible in the booking area, so could not have been deliberately indifferent	Denied immunity as to Hochmuth — district court findings could support a jury inference that Hochmuth knew of Durkee's presence and disregarded the risk; law was clearly established
Whether Sheriff Minor is individually liable (qualified immunity) based on supervisory control, policy, or failure to supervise/train	Durkee: Minor’s management of staff, the policy of unshackling in the booking area, and inadequate supervision/training caused Hochmuth’s deliberate indifference	Minor: No direct personal involvement or causation; the unshackling policy was facially reasonable and isolated incident; post-incident review is not causative	Reversed as to Minor — plaintiff failed to show direct personal responsibility, causation, or deliberate indifference required for individual supervisory liability

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of and disregard for substantial risk)
Lynch v. Barrett, 703 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2013) (standards for reviewing denials of qualified immunity pre-judgment)
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (supervisory liability for maintaining a constitutionally defective policy)
Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322 (10th Cir. 2010) (individual-capacity supervisory liability requires direct personal responsibility)
Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2009) (post-violation conduct does not establish causation for prior constitutional violation)