Henderson v. Glanz
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22729
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Sept. 27, 2011, inmate Aleshia Henderson, handcuffed and leg‑restrained, was placed in the Jail medical unit’s tub room (a holding cell) while two detention officers (DO Johnson and DO Thomas) and nurses staffed the medical desk.
- Inmate Jessie Earl Johnson (a trustee and convicted of assault on an officer) was unsecured and seated near the tub room; he entered the unlocked tub room and allegedly raped Henderson; medical exam showed injuries consistent with forced intercourse.
- Officers left the medical unit to respond to a separate medical emergency: DO Thomas left to fetch a gurney (believing the tub room was locked and DO Johnson present); DO Johnson accompanied nurses and did not secure nearby inmates or recheck the tub room.
- TCSO investigation found policy violations (medical unit requires two officers, failure to maintain logbook, tub room unsecured, officers left post); prior staff‑on‑inmate sexual misconduct incidents in the medical unit were documented.
- Henderson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; district court denied qualified immunity for DO Johnson, DO Thomas, and Sheriff Glanz (individual capacity) because genuine fact disputes existed about notice of risk.
- Tenth Circuit: dismissed appeals of DO Johnson and Sheriff Glanz for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction (their arguments attacked factual findings); granted review as to DO Thomas, and reversed denial of qualified immunity for DO Thomas because no clearly established constitutional violation was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory appeal allowed for DO Johnson | Henderson: district court correctly found factual disputes about officers’ awareness of risk, so denial not appealable only as legal issue | DO Johnson: presents legal question whether assisting nurse during emergency satisfies deliberate indifference when she believed cell locked | Lack of jurisdiction — appeal asks court to reweigh factual findings, not a pure legal question |
| Whether interlocutory appeal allowed for Sheriff Glanz (supervisory liability) | Henderson: prior incidents and staffing/surveillance problems put Glanz on notice of risk | Glanz: no documented inmate‑on‑inmate assaults in medical unit, so no notice | Lack of jurisdiction — challenges factual determinations about notice |
| Whether DO Thomas entitled to qualified immunity | Henderson: DO Thomas left unit, contributing to inadequate supervision and risk to Henderson | DO Thomas: left believing tub room locked and another officer present; no evidence he knew of unlocked door or substantial risk | Reversed denial: qualified immunity granted because no clearly established law made his conduct unconstitutional given no subjective awareness of risk |
| Whether alleged policy violations (staffing, lock procedures) alone establish Eighth Amendment violation | Henderson: policy violations support deliberate indifference inference | Defendants: policy breach does not automatically equate to constitutional violation absent clearly established law and subjective knowledge | Court: policy breaches insufficient to defeat qualified immunity for DO Thomas without clearly established precedent showing similar conduct unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (holds Eighth Amendment liability requires subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits interlocutory review of factual disputes in qualified immunity denials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (framework for qualified immunity analysis)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (record can blatantly contradict plaintiff’s version such that appellate de novo review is permitted)
- Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. rule that in some circumstances failure to protect inmates may violate Eighth Amendment)