Ezmerelda Rivera v. Manuel Fierros, Jr.
691 F. App'x 234
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In December 2014 detainee Ezmerelda Rivera was sexually assaulted by jailer Manuel Fierros at the Hale County Jail; Fierros later confessed. Rivera sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Fierros and supervisory officials Sheriff Mull and Jail Administrator Bonner (Appellees).
- Fierros had two juvenile arrests (age 15) for indecency with a child by sexual contact discovered during hiring in 2012; no convictions were shown and Bonner reported limited inquiries to county offices that yielded no records.
- In July 2014, a different senior jailer sexually abused a detainee; the incident was recorded on video and the jail issued reminders and posted a “no sex with inmates” sign but made no substantive policy, training, or camera changes.
- Rivera alleged supervisory liability for (1) deliberate indifference in hiring Fierros given his juvenile arrests and (2) inadequate training and supervision in light of the prior July 2014 incident.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Appellees based on qualified immunity; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Rivera failed to rebut qualified immunity for either claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference in hiring | Rivera: hiring Fierros despite juvenile arrests for sexual offenses made sexual assault of detainees a plainly obvious risk | Appellees: arrests were juvenile, vague, no convictions, Appellees made some inquiry; link to future sexual violence not obvious | Held: No deliberate indifference—juvenile arrests were inconclusive and lacked a strong causal connection to the assault; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Inadequate training and supervision | Rivera: after July 2014 sexual abuse defendants failed to implement meaningful reforms (training, monitoring, cameras) and left blind spots like multipurpose room | Appellees: jailers received state licensing/training, posted reminders, considered privacy concerns for multipurpose room, and prior abuse occurred in cameraed area so no clear notice training/system failed | Held: Not clearly established that the limited post-incident response violated the Constitution; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step qualified immunity analysis)
- Brown v. Board of County Commissioners, 520 U.S. 397 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on supervisor liability for hiring where link to misconduct is tenuous)
- Gros v. City of Grand Prairie, 209 F.3d 431 (5th Cir.) (requirement of strong connection between applicant background and specific violation)
- Wernecke v. Garcia, 591 F.3d 386 (5th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard for supervisor liability)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (Sup. Ct.) (state duty to persons in custody)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Sup. Ct.) (deliberate indifference to substantial risk standard)
- Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (post-incident failure to reform may show deliberate indifference)
- Robertson v. Doe, 751 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.) (no clearly established duty to change practices after some prior incidents)
- Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir.) (extreme facts where minimal remedial steps supported liability)