949 F.3d 1153
9th Cir.2020Background
- In Jan 2015 Samantha Vazquez, a female juvenile ward, was housed in Kern County Juvenile Hall (Unit 300A) and worked on staff-supervised "details."
- Vazquez alleges Officer George Anderson made sexual comments, touched her without consent, groomed her during isolated work details, and watched her undress/shower on multiple occasions.
- Vazquez reported the conduct; an internal investigation interviewed dozens of witnesses, sustained the allegations, and Kern County began terminating Anderson.
- Juvenile Hall policies and PREA-based training prohibited opposite-gender viewing of youths’ naked bodies and discouraged staff being alone with minors; some staff testified Anderson violated those policies.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Anderson and his supervisor Heathe Appleton and dismissed Kern County; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding triable issues on multiple Fourteenth Amendment claims and denying qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson violated Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily privacy | Vazquez: Anderson repeatedly watched her shower, directed her to specific stalls, and viewed her naked body | Anderson: observations were infrequent, distant, and justified by security | Court: Viewing facts favorably, a reasonable jury could find a privacy violation; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether Anderson violated Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity (substantive due process) | Vazquez: sexual comments, unwanted touching, grooming, and a "rated R" dream episode show egregious abuse of power | Anderson: conduct too minor to "shock the conscience" | Court: Allegations analogous to Fontana; jury could find conduct shocks the conscience; summary judgment reversed |
| Whether Anderson’s conduct constituted punishment of a pretrial detainee (Fourteenth Amendment) | Vazquez: harms exceeded inherent confinement discomforts and served no legitimate penological purpose | Anderson: actions were related to facility safety/security | Court: Evidence suggests harms were independent of confinement and not legitimate; jury could find a Fourteenth Amendment punishment violation |
| Whether Anderson and Appleton are entitled to qualified immunity | Vazquez: rights were clearly established; PREA training and facility rules put officers on notice | Defendants: reasonable officials would not know conduct violated clearly established law | Court: Rights to bodily privacy, integrity, and freedom from sexual abuse were clearly established; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether supervisor Appleton is liable under §1983 for failure to act | Vazquez: Appleton saw Anderson alone with female wards, knew of a prior shower incident, and failed to prevent or document misconduct | Appleton: no causal link or notice sufficient for supervisory liability | Court: Fact issues exist on Appleton’s knowledge and failure to act; summary judgment on supervisory claim was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepulveda v. Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1992) (recognizing Fourteenth Amendment protection for bodily privacy)
- Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1985) (evaluating cross-sex observation of inmates and privacy limits)
- Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding sexualized conduct by officer can violate bodily integrity)
- Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fourteenth Amendment claims for cross-gender observation of detainee survived early dismissal)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (distinguishing punishment standards for pretrial detainees)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (test for prison regulations that impinge constitutional rights)
- Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements for punishment claim under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (no qualified immunity when guards sexually abuse inmates)
- Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting naked-body privacy as clearly established)
- Sharp v. Cty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing "obvious case" exception to needing closely analogous precedent)