Sam Thurmond, Sr. v. Gary Andrews
972 F.3d 1007
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Six former Faulkner County Detention Center inmates sued Faulkner County and two jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional shower conditions due to “black mold” (2016–2018).
- First written inmate complaints about mold appear by February 2017; jail used Act 309 inmate labor to powerwash and apply a primer/sealer to showers.
- In June 2017 the county hired ATOKA, which found Cladosporium on 4 of 11 surfaces, concluded no widespread airborne mold problem, and recommended a two-product chemical sanitizing regimen and drying procedures.
- Jail officials did not implement ATOKA’s remediation recommendations; one jail official testified he had not read the report but was briefed on results.
- Plaintiffs’ expert allergist tested the inmates and found only one plaintiff allergic to Cladosporium; he testified allergy is required for mold to cause illness.
- The district court denied qualified immunity for the individual defendants and denied the County’s summary judgment; the Eighth Circuit reversed as to the individuals (qualified immunity) and declined jurisdiction over the County’s appeal, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Andrews and Riedmueller were deliberately indifferent to unconstitutional sanitary conditions caused by mold | No clearly established right to be free from common mold/allergens at alleged levels; factual disputes | Reversed denial of qualified immunity; officers entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established |
| Whether presence of Cladosporium violated the Eighth Amendment | Mold in showers created unconstitutional conditions of confinement | Levels and scope did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation; mitigation efforts existed | Court did not decide merits due to factual disputes and limited interlocutory jurisdiction on qualified immunity question |
| Whether a right to sanitary conditions (re: mold/allergens) was clearly established | Broad Eighth Amendment right to sanitary conditions makes the violation obvious | Right must be defined with particularity; broad articulation is impermissible | Right, as applied to Cladosporium/allergens at alleged levels, was not clearly established |
| Whether the County is liable (municipal liability / failure to train) | County had policy/custom or failed to train causing unconstitutional conditions | If no constitutional violation, County not liable | Court lacked jurisdiction to resolve County’s appeal; remanded for district court to address municipal-liability issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillard v. O’Kelley, 961 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2020) (reciting qualified immunity standard and clearly established-law inquiry)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (U.S. 2015) (‘‘clearly established’’ means every reasonable official would understand the conduct violates the right)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (prevents defining clearly established law at a high level of generality)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (obvious constitutional violations can overcome qualified immunity)
- Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2013) (mold allegations considered in context of more severe, cumulative facility deprivations)
- Christian v. Wagner, 623 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2010) (references to allergens in inadequate-medical-care context)
- Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (discusses when lack of clearly established right affects municipal-liability claims)