Keith v. Koerner
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2924
10th Cir.2013Background
- Keith, a former inmate at Topeka Correctional Facility (TCF), all-female state prison, from Nov 2006 to May 2010, alleges a policy or culture of sexual misconduct at TCF.
- Gallardo, a prison instructor, sexually assaulted Keith in Oct 2007; he pled guilty in June 2008 to unlawful sexual relations and trafficking contraband.
- Topeka Police investigated; Keith terminated the pregnancy; incident timeline linked to prior misconduct within TCF.
- Keith filed May 2011 civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting deliberate indifference to risk of harm and policy failures; incorporated a 2010 Kansas Audit Report.
- District court denied some defendants’ immunity defenses and Keith’s claims against Koerner and Gallardo proceeded; the district court denied qualified immunity to Koerner.
- Appellate court reviews de novo the district court’s legal ruling on qualified immunity and whether the complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Keith plausibly alleged deliberate indifference by Koerner | Keith alleges Koerner knew of multiple sexual misconduct incidents and tolerated a policy. | Koerner had no specific knowledge of Keith’s risk and responses were reasonable. | Yes; complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference under current standards. |
| Whether Keith’s pleading shows personal involvement/knowledge through policy | Audit Report and patterns show Koerner knew of misconduct. | Disputes about post-event timing and context; insufficient for liability. | Plaintiff’s pleadings raise plausible inference of awareness via policy, not barred at pleadings stage. |
| Whether the pleading meets Twombly pleading standard | Allegations go beyond conclusory labels, showing structural problems and training gaps. | Arguments rely on late Audit Report and generalized assertions. | Pleadings meet plausible-inference standard under Twombly. |
| Whether the statute of limitations tolling issues are essential | Tolling basis plausibly alleged in district court. | Limitations issue pending; not necessary on appeal. | Not reached/ not necessary to decide here; pendent jurisdiction lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008) (deliberate indifference standard for prison officials)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (S. Ct. 2011) (Eighth Amendment standard and affirmative link concept)
- Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (three-pronged affirmative link for supervisor liability)
- Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993) (no basis for substantial risk based on every inmate risk)
- Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998) (insufficient evidence of actual knowledge for liability)
- Gonzales v. Martinez, 403 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2005) (pleadings sufficient to permit claim for deliberate indifference)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards applied in 10th Circuit)