Sarah Doe v. Jerald Neveleff
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8534
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Female immigrant plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by a male CCA employee (Dunn) while being transported alone from the Hutto immigration detention center; Dunn later pleaded guilty to related criminal charges.
- ICE had a Service Agreement requiring at least one transport officer be the same sex as transported residents; CCA and Hutto policies tracked that requirement.
- Plaintiffs alleged ICE Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs) Robertson and Rosado knew of repeated transport violations (numerous lone male-driver trips) and knew the provision’s purpose was to prevent sexual assaults.
- Plaintiffs brought a Bivens suit against Robertson and Rosado for Fifth Amendment deliberate indifference and sought discovery; defendants moved to dismiss asserting qualified immunity.
- The district court denied dismissal; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true but evaluated whether those facts showed violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that knowledge of contractual violations alone did not, under clearly established law, amount to the subjective deliberate indifference required to overcome qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COTRs’ knowledge of Service Agreement breaches and purpose plausibly alleges subjective deliberate indifference under Farmer | Knowledge of repeated lone-male transports and the rule’s anti-assault purpose shows they consciously disregarded a substantial risk | Mere knowledge of contract violations or access to records does not prove actual subjective awareness of a substantial risk | Denied: facts as pleaded did not plausibly show deliberate indifference as a matter of clearly established law |
| Whether such allegations defeat qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: alleged facts make violation of clearly established Fifth Amendment right plausible | Defendants: no controlling authority made it "beyond debate" that contractual breaches alone create a constitutional violation | Held: qualified immunity applies; no clearly established law put defendants on notice |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to discovery before dismissal | Plaintiffs: discovery could reveal additional facts supporting deliberate indifference | Defendants: pleadings must meet plausibility standard before discovery | Held: complaint failed plausibility test; no entitlement to discovery at pleading stage |
| Whether Bivens is available against COTRs (preserved below) | Plaintiffs assumed Bivens applicable to federal officials here | Defendants argued Minneci/other limits might bar Bivens against COTRs | Not decided on appeal (defendants abandoned categorical Bivens argument) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of an implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; distinguish factual allegations from legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. en banc discussion of qualified immunity review)
- Wyatt v. Fletcher, 718 F.3d 496 (qualified immunity two-step framework in 5th Cir.)
- Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (application of Farmer subjective standard to pretrial detainee claims)
- Newton v. City of Henderson, 47 F.3d 746 (access to information alone insufficient to impute knowledge where record shows otherwise)
- Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (post-event evidence can support deliberate indifference but is a fact-intensive inquiry)
- Scott v. Moore, 114 F.3d 51 (municipal deliberate indifference analysis and limits of proof of awareness)