Jessica Peterson v. Marsha McCorkhill, 20-35203

Jessica Peterson, an Oregon state prisoner, alleged she was sexually abused by Correctional Officer Edgar Mickles at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility.
Peterson obtained a default judgment against Mickles and sued multiple Coffee Creek officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to supervise and for failing to provide surveillance that might have prevented the abuse.
The district court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants; Peterson appealed.
On appeal Peterson sought judicial notice of other civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and news articles, and offered an uncertified deposition excerpt as evidence of no cameras in the Programs Building.
The district court declined the judicial-notice requests, excluded the uncertified transcript excerpt, and concluded Peterson lacked evidence that any defendant was personally involved in or causally connected to Mickles’ misconduct.
The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s rulings and summary judgment for the defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial notice of other civil suits at Coffee Creek	Sought notice to show pattern/notice of abuse	Cases were dismissed or settled; no adjudicative facts appropriate for notice	Court declined judicial notice; dismissed/settled cases not appropriate for notice
Judicial notice of criminal prosecutions and news articles	Asked court to notice prosecutions/articles to support claims	Peterson failed to supply judgments or identify specific adjudicative facts or articles	Court declined judicial notice; Rule 201 requires requests plus supporting information
Admissibility of uncertified deposition excerpt	Offered excerpt to corroborate absence of cameras	Excerpt lacked reporter’s certification and was inadmissible	Exclusion was proper under Ninth Circuit precedent; no prejudice because declaration established absence of cameras
Eighth Amendment supervisory liability (Nelson, camera placement, Kiser)	Nelson failed to report/intercede; officials failed to install cameras; Kiser as supervisor liable	No evidence Nelson had supervisory authority or induced violation; no personal involvement or causal link for camera-placement defendants or Kiser	Summary judgment affirmed; no evidence of personal involvement, supervisory authority, or sufficient causal connection

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards and limits for judicial notice)
Orr v. Bank of Am. NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (requirement for reporter’s certification for deposition transcript admissibility)
Canada v. Blain's Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1987) (same on deposition certification)
Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (supervisory liability requires personal involvement or inducement)
Lemire v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (personal involvement and causation standards for supervisory claims)
Lolli v. Cnty. of Orange, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003) (causal-connection requirement for supervisory liability)
Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1989) (responsibility for facility security alone insufficient for liability)
Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2018) (institutional responsibility does not by itself create § 1983 liability)
Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 843 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2016) (declines to consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)