Lobozzo v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 429 F. App'x 707

Lobozzo, an inmate at La Vista, sues CDOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate policies allowed sexual contact with guard Martinez.
In 2007 Lobozzo began a sexual relationship with Martinez; rumors spread; she met with officers to quell rumors while denying the relationship.
Martinez and Lobozzo were later caught in a custodian’s closet; Lobozzo was briefly segregated and she was transferred to Canon City.
CDOC moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity; the district court granted, finding Lobozzo failed to show causation of a constitutional violation.
Lobozzo argued the CDOC knew of risks to female inmates and failed to draft, review, or enforce protective policies, with reference to PREA statistics.
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding no evidence showed the defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to Lobozzo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the CDOC defendants violate the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect Lobozzo through inadequate policies?	Lobozzo argues PREA data showed risk and defendants knew or should have known.	JonesAbbott and others lacked actual knowledge of a specific risk and no deliberate indifference was shown.	No Eighth Amendment violation; qualified immunity applies.
Was the right at issue clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct?	Right to protection from known risk of sexual abuse was clearly established via PREA references.	No clearly established authority showed a violator’s liability under these facts in 2007.	Not clearly established; qualified immunity.
Did the policy of segregating or punishing victims during investigations violate the Eighth Amendment?	Segregation following the incident and related treatment violated humane conditions and deterred reporting.	Isolation was protective during investigations and not punitive; evidence of harm was lacking.	No Eighth Amendment violation; no cognizable failure shown.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (duty to provide humane conditions; substantial risk must be known and disregarded)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity shields discretionary official conduct)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (redefines when to address qualified-immunity questions at summary judgment)
Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008) (prison official must be aware of substantial risk and take reasonable steps)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff must plead individual defendant's constitutional violation)
Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2002) (robust evidence required to show notice and deliberate indifference)
Casey v. W. Las Vegas Indep. Sch. Dist., 473 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 2007) (two-part burden for qualified immunity in the 10th Circuit)
Zweibon v. Mitchell, 720 F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (clear establishment requires decisive authority)
Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2001) (clearly established right requires on-point authority)
Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 1993) (concrete evidence of risk supports deliberate indifference inquiry)