Roe v. Fowlkes Tucker, 3:24-cv-00145

Plaintiff Jane Roe, an incarcerated woman, alleged she was sexually assaulted in 2020 by Nkemdilim Okoli, a correctional officer at Central Virginia Correctional Unit #13 (CVCU).
Plaintiff further sued Tykeshae Fowlkes Tucker, then the Superintendent at CVCU, for failing to prevent the assault or address conditions that enabled it, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Okoli had no documented disciplinary or criminal history relevant to sexual misconduct prior to the assault, and consistently passed mandatory PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) trainings.
Plaintiff did not report the assault until months later, and her initial report was mishandled and not escalated to Fowlkes.
Fowlkes was Superintendent until December 25, 2020, established PREA policies and requested more surveillance, but blind spots remained; she submitted but did not have authority to approve camera improvements.
The court addressed Fowlkes’s summary judgment motion, reviewing whether sufficient evidence supported Plaintiff’s claims of Fowlkes’s knowledge or deliberate indifference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Actual/Constructive Knowledge of Okoli's Abuse	Fowlkes knew or should have known about Okoli’s reputation due to CVCU’s small size and Okoli's reputation among inmates.	Fowlkes had no actual or constructive knowledge—no reports or evidence in Okoli’s record.	No genuine dispute of fact—insufficient evidence of knowledge.
Section 1983 Liability (Count II)	Actions/inactions violated Roe's 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights.	Such claims are not actionable under these amendments in the prison context.	Count II fails to state a claim.
Section 1983 Eighth Amendment Liability (Count III)	Fowlkes failed to intervene and maintain an environment free from sexual assault, and had deficient policies.	Fowlkes responded reasonably to known risks (policies, training, camera requests); no evidence of deliberate indifference.	No basis for supervisory or direct liability; summary judgment for Fowlkes.
Failure to Train/Supervise	Mishandling of report by Officer Ross shows inadequate PREA training.	PREA training was robust and regularly reinforced; no pattern of failures.	No specific deficiency shown; isolated incident insufficient for liability.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: whether the evidence allows a reasonable verdict for the non-movant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment; failure to establish essential element is dispositive)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment requires actual knowledge of risk)
Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. 1994) (§ 1983 supervisory liability requires supervisor's knowledge and inadequate response)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (prison guard's sexual assault is per se Eighth Amendment violation)