928 F.3d 299
3rd Cir.2019Background
- E.D., an immigration detainee at Berks County Residential Center (BCRC), alleges employee Daniel Sharkey sexually assaulted her beginning July–August 2014 while she was detained; Sharkey was later criminally convicted under Pennsylvania law for institutional sexual assault.
- E.D. sued Sharkey, several BCRC staff and the BCRC director (claiming deliberate indifference and retaliation), and Berks County (municipal liability for deficient policies) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment.
- District Court granted summary judgment for BCRC and one staff member, dismissed an ICE defendant earlier, granted punitive-damages-related relief to the County, but denied summary judgment for the remaining individual defendants and declined summary judgment on County liability for reasons of disputed fact.
- Defendants (except Sharkey) appealed interlocutorily, challenging the denial of qualified immunity for individual staff and the district court’s finding that E.D. pled a clearly established constitutional right; the County’s denial of summary judgment was dismissed from appeal for lack of collateral-order jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit held (1) immigration detainees are entitled to the same Fourteenth Amendment due-process protections as pretrial detainees; (2) the denial of qualified immunity for the individual defendants was proper because E.D. alleged a violation of a clearly established right and raised triable issues of deliberate indifference; and (3) it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment for Berks County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immigration detainees receive Fourteenth Amendment protections equivalent to pretrial detainees | E.D.: Due process protects detained immigrants from punishment and from sexual assault by staff | Defendants: BCRC differs from prisons; staff not analogous to prison guards | Held: Immigration detainees are protected by Fourteenth Amendment like pretrial detainees |
| Whether individual staff and the supervisor violated a clearly established right to bodily integrity by failing to protect from staff sexual assault | E.D.: Staff knew or should have known of Sharkey’s conduct and were deliberately indifferent | Defendants: Sexual contact was consensual; they were unaware and so entitled to qualified immunity | Held: Right was clearly established; factual disputes about consent and notice are for a jury; denial of qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether defendants exhibited deliberate indifference (failure to protect) | E.D.: Small facility, visible relationship, detainee complaints, deficient training/policies show knowledge and indifference | Defendants: They lacked knowledge of the sexual relationship; acted reasonably | Held: Genuine dispute of material fact exists as to awareness and reasonableness; summary judgment properly denied |
| Whether the Court of Appeals can review denial of summary judgment for Berks County | E.D.: County liable under municipal § 1983 theory for policy failures | County: appealed denial of summary judgment | Held: No appellate jurisdiction over municipal denial (no qualified immunity); County issue must await final judgment on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (supreme court 1985) (qualified immunity can be reviewed interlocutorily because it grants immunity from suit)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (supreme court 1979) (pretrial-detainee conditions judged under Due Process Clause; punishment prior to adjudication is prohibited)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (supreme court 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for custodial safety claims)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (supreme court 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001) (facility employees and supervisors can be liable for co-worker sexual abuse if aware and indifferent)
- Forbes v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 313 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2002) (appellate review of qualified immunity requires district courts to specify material facts that are and are not in dispute)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (supreme court 2002) (obvious unlawfulness of conduct can render a right clearly established even absent materially similar precedent)