78 F.4th 1019
8th Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Wilbert Glover, a pretrial detainee at Ramsey County Adult Detention Center, alleged that on Dec. 30, 2015 corrections officer Richard Paul ordered a strip search, grasped and squeezed Glover’s naked penis, and made sexual gestures.
- Glover filed a verified pro se § 1983 complaint alleging unconstitutional sexual abuse/excessive force and sought medical treatment and filed grievances.
- Paul denied the allegations, submitted a declaration denying any inappropriate touching, and moved for summary judgment asserting lack of admissible evidence and qualified immunity.
- The district court treated Glover’s verified complaint as an affidavit at summary judgment and denied Paul’s motion, concluding the alleged conduct violated a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, accepted the district court’s assumed facts for summary-judgment purposes, and considered whether the alleged conduct was objectively unreasonable and clearly established as unlawful.
- The court affirmed, holding that if the allegations are true they would constitute sexual abuse/assault violating a detainee’s clearly established due-process right to be free from excessive force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged squeezing/grasping during a strip search violated a detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right against objectively unreasonable force | Glover: intentional, gratuitous touching of unclothed genitals during a strip search is sexual abuse/excessive force and not penologically justified | Paul: manual contact with genitals can be necessary during searches; no evidence this search served an improper purpose | Held: Accepting Glover’s facts, a jury could find the conduct was gratuitous sexual abuse exceeding legitimate search purposes and objectively unreasonable. |
| Whether Paul is entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness wasn’t clearly established | Glover: preexisting Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment precedents and circuit decisions put officers on notice that sexual assault by a guard is unconstitutional | Paul: no prior case with sufficiently similar facts to put him on notice | Held: Reasonable officer would know gratuitous sexual assault/fondling of an inmate/detainee is unlawful; qualified immunity is denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (establishes Due Process standards for pretrial detainees and limits on searches)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims judged by objective-reasonableness standard)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force objective/subjective framework)
- Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544 (sexual assault of an inmate by a guard violates constitutional rights)
- Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335 (sexual harassment/abuse by corrections officer can never serve legitimate penological purpose)
- Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (nonroutine patdown with sexual harassment can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Haberthur v. City of Raymore, 119 F.3d 720 (sexual fondling/touching of private erogenous area can violate substantive due-process right to bodily integrity)
- Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252 (a single, gratuitous act of sexual abuse during searches can violate the Eighth Amendment)
- Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041 (unjustified stroking of unclothed genitalia can state an Eighth Amendment claim)
- Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073 (brief clothed touching held insufficient where no sexual comments, fear, or injury)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established law requirement for qualified immunity)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (requires controlling authority or robust consensus to put law beyond debate)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (officials can be on notice of unlawfulness even in novel factual circumstances)