Michele Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio
915 F.3d 1087
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- Katie Sherman, jailed at Trumbull County Jail from Nov 2013–Apr 2014, alleges corrections officer Charles Drennen repeatedly demanded she expose her breasts and masturbate in his presence on multiple occasions.
- Sherman complied out of intimidation; she alleges no physical touching by Drennen and never reported the conduct while incarcerated.
- Sherman claims worsened PTSD, night terrors, and flashbacks from the abuse.
- Sherman and a co-plaintiff sued Drennen and county officials under § 1983; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims except Sherman’s Eighth Amendment claim against Drennen.
- Drennen appealed the denial of qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim; the Sixth Circuit affirms, conceding facts in Sherman’s favor for the interlocutory qualified-immunity review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drennen’s conduct violated the Eighth Amendment | Repeated demands to expose breasts and masturbate constitute sexual abuse sufficiently serious to satisfy objective and subjective Eighth Amendment prongs | No physical touching and alleged consent mean conduct was not an Eighth Amendment violation | Held: Conduct meets the Eighth Amendment (objective and subjective) when viewed in plaintiff’s favor |
| Whether Sherman consented | Sherman contends compliance was coerced/intimidated, so not consent | Drennen contends Sherman consented to the acts | Held: Consent is disputed; presumption that inmates cannot consent to staff; at summary judgment facts construed for Sherman |
| Whether the right was clearly established such that qualified immunity is unavailable | Argued that law clearly established that sexual abuse by guards can violate the Eighth Amendment, including non-touching abuse | Drennen argued no controlling case with identical facts; thus not clearly established | Held: Right was clearly established in 2014—qualified immunity denied |
| Proper standard for subjective component of sexual-abuse claims | Sherman: deliberate indifference or malice standard suffice given facts | Drennen: (argued implicitly) higher malice standard might not be met | Held: Court need not decide which standard applies; under either deliberate indifference or malice, a jury could find constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for prisoner safety)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive force/subjective intent standard)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (objective component and conditions-of-confinement analysis)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (contextual inquiry for objective Eighth Amendment harms)
- Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. recognition that non-touching sexual abuse can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. holding sexualized orders during searches can state Eighth Amendment claim)
- Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. forced striptease supports Eighth Amendment claim)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. recognizing sexual assault by guard can violate Eighth Amendment)