Willard Berry v. Brian Doss
900 F.3d 1017
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- William Berry, a pro se inmate at NEACCC, alleged multiple reports (July–Dec 2015) of sexual and physical harassment, threats, and assault by other inmates and claimed NEACCC rehabilitation officials failed to protect him.
- Berry alleged Therapeutic Community Supervisor Brian Doss sanctioned him for reporting, removed his writing utensils, and moved an allegedly abusive inmate into Berry’s cell, after which Berry was harmed.
- Berry filed a verified complaint (later amended unverified) seeking injunctive and monetary relief; he did not respond to defendants’ summary judgment briefing.
- Doss submitted a declaration stating staff met with Berry on or about Oct. 6, 2015, Berry said the complaint was resolved, and Doss was unaware of further problems.
- The Magistrate Judge and district court denied summary judgment on Berry’s failure-to-protect claim, finding material factual disputes about what officials knew and did; they rejected the qualified-immunity claim at that stage.
- The rehabilitation officials appealed interlocutorily arguing qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendants’ arguments centrally raised disputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on failure-to-protect claim | Berry: officials knew of repeated harassment and disregarded a substantial risk to his safety | Officials: their October meeting and Berry’s statement that the matter was resolved show an objectively reasonable response and lack of actual knowledge of ongoing risk | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the immunity defense depends on disputed facts that the court cannot resolve on interlocutory review |
| Whether district court should have credited Doss’s uncontroverted declaration because Berry did not respond | Berry: his verified complaint functions as an affidavit and creates genuine factual disputes | Officials: Berry’s failure to respond to summary judgment required accepting Doss’s account as true | Court: district court properly relied on Berry’s verified complaint; factual disputes remain, so appellate review is barred |
| Whether the record plainly forecloses the district court’s finding of factual disputes (exception to jurisdictional bar) | Berry: verified allegations support disputes on notice and causation | Officials: argue record supports no dispute and forecloses contrary finding | Court: record does not plainly foreclose disputes; exception not satisfied |
| Whether defendants merely cloaked factual dispute in qualified-immunity language to create jurisdiction | Berry: N/A (plaintiff does not need to argue this) | Officials: framed arguments as legal reasonableness under clearly established law | Court: could not accept that framing because underlying disputes are factual; jurisdiction is absent |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (establishes two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits interlocutory appeals from denials of qualified immunity to purely legal issues)
- Mallak v. City of Baxter, 823 F.3d 441 (8th Cir.) (cannot appeal immunity denial when central dispute is factual)
- Raines v. Counseling Assocs. Inc., 883 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir.) (no jurisdiction where key factual question prevents resolving clearly established-law issue)
- Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736 (8th Cir.) (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard for prison official liability)
- Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir.) (same deliberate-indifference principles applied)