Sexual Assault in County Jail - Supervisory Liability Analysis
In Gonzales v. Martinez, et al., No. 03-1348 (April 14, 2005), the Tenth Circuit clarified the evidence a plaintiff may use succesfully to prove a jail administrator's liability for a guard's sexual assault of a female inmate. The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of a county sheriff after two women were sexually assaulted in the county jail. The Court held that a jury could find, based on the evidence presented, that the sheriff ignored a "substantial risk of serious harm".
While the case involves an Eighth Amendment claim, the holding has broad application in Section 1983 for supervisory claims and municipal claims. (Claims of prison assault analyzed under Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Lopez v. LeMaster, 172 F.3d 756, 761 (10th Cir. 1999); Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063, 1068 (10th Cir. 1993)).
The factual details of the evidence considered and the Court's handling of the evidence are difficult to summarize. The case is an obvious must read for the practitioner with a similar claim. However, there are aspects of the opinion worth noting:
1) The Court inferred that post-incident misconduct may be used to show a supervisory defendant's mental state or policy.
To meet the Farmer test . . . Ms. Gonzales presented a series of incidents both preceding and following her assault to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the sheriff [possessed facts from which an inference can be drawn that the sheriff was aware of a "substantial risk of serious harm"].
2) The Court considered evidence of how the sheriff handled the investigation of the sexual assaults at issue.
Finally, and most astonishing, when first advised . . . he not only left the prisoners unprotected in the jail, but also in the custody and control of the very men accused of the assaults.
3) The Court considered acts of guard-on-inmate violence other than sexual assaults, other guard misconduct and the failure to provide security for the area where the assault occurred.
NOTE FOR NEW MEXICO PRACTIONERS:
While this case is of monumental importance in prosecuting supervisory liability claims, the New Mexico Tort Claims Act provides coverage for state employees who commit criminal acts while engaged in the service of their employers. Risk Management Division v. McBrayer, 129 N.M. 778, 2000 NMCA 104, 14 P.3d 43 (Ct. App. 2000). Thus, the importance of supervisory liability claims is not as great as in other jurisdictions. In New Mexico, a county's carrier would likely pay a judgment against a guard who sexually assaults an inmate.