# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 35 32

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Van es sa Ch av ero -Lin ares

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Tim ot hy Sm it h; Kevi n P . Don ne ll y ; Se rg ean t Den ni s B ead le ; J an et Napo li ta no ;

Ri ch ard Mo or e; Jo hn Doe; Sh eri ff Dav id McDan ie l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 15
Fil ed : M on da y , Apri l 1 3, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Van es sa Ch av ero -Lin ares , an immigr at io n de ta in ee, su ed co un ty an d fed eral

of fic ia ls aft er an ot he r in m at e hi t he r wit h a pl as ti c ch ai r. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.th e fed eral de fen da nt s un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ), th en gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t t o t h e c o u n ty de fen da nt s. Sh e ap pe al s bo th ru li ng s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

I.

Ch av ero -Lin ares was he ld at th e H a r d i n Co un ty Co rrec ti on al Cen te r at th e
di rect io n o f I mm i g r a ti on an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t (ICE). In he r co m pl ai nt

, sh e
al le ge s th at an ot he r in m at e m ad e de ro ga to ry an d “ th reat en in g st at em en ts ,” whi ch

“ al arm ed ” he r. Sh e al so al le ge s th at sh e rep or te d th em to se r g e a n t D e n n is Bea dl e;

an d afte r he “ ig no red he r,” she “ cal le d [ICE] Age nt Kev in Don ne ll y , an d he repl ie d

th at he co ul d n ot do an y th in g e it he r.”

W it hi n a w e e k

, t he in m at e th rew a li gh twei gh t, pl as ti c ch ai r at he r. In an
affi da vi t, Ch av ero -Lin ares sa id th e “ as sa ul t cau se d a si gn ifi can t in jury on m y face ,”

“ a br ui se in th e sa m e sh ap e as th e bo tt om pa rt of th e ch a i r , ” “ a gr eat de al of he ad

pa in ” fo r “ at le as t two da y s,” an d res id ua l “ pa in in m y rig ht c h e e k f

o r ab ou t th ree
week s.” Sh e al so sa id : “ W hi le I am no t a do ct or , I do be li ev e th at I di d su ffer a m il d

co nc us si on .” Sh e to o k on e pa in pi ll

. A co nt em po ran eo us ph ot o sh ows an in jury

co ns is te nt wit h Bead le ’s ob se rv at io n of “ a li tt le red m ark on he r rig ht ch eek

. The re

was no swe ll in g or pu ffi ne ss an d no bl eed in g.” Ano th er of fic er sa id h e d i d no t

co m pl et e an in ci de nt rep or t “ be cau se th e sc rat ch was so m in or , an d be cau se [s he ] was

no t u ps et , in pa in , [an d d id no t as k] for m ed ic al tre at m en t.”

Ch av ero -Lin a r e s b ro ug ht fo ur cl ai m s: fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect ag ai ns t Don ne ll y , Bea dl e, an d Sh eri ff Tim ot hy Sm it h; fai lu re-t o- tra in ag a i n s t S m it h an d ICE ag en t

Ri ch ard Mo or e; su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s ag ai ns t Mo or e, Se c r e t ary of Hom el an d

S e cu rit y Ja ne t Nap ol it an o, an d Sh eri ff Dav id McDa ni el ; an d, fai lu re-t o- ha ve -a

cu st od y -p ol ic y

ag ai ns t M oo re an d M cDan ie l.

-2

-The co ur t di sm is se d th e fed eral de fen da nt s an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to

th e co un ty de fen da nt s. The co ur t al s o g r a n t ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y to Bea dl e,

Don ne ll y , Mo or e, an d S m it h.

II.

A.

“ Cl ai m s no t rai se d in an op en in g br ie f are de em ed w a i v e d

. ” J enk in s v.

Wi nt er , 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Se e al so Co x v. Mo rt g. El ec. Reg is tr at

io n Sys
., In c. , 68 5 F.3 d 66 3, 67 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng pa rty waiv ed is su e “ by fai li ng

to pr ov id e a m ean in gf

ul ex pl an at io n of th e arg um en t an d ci ta ti on to rel ev an t au th or it y
in th ei r op en in g br ie f” al th ou gh “ arg um en t was pe rh ap s fo res ha do wed by a he ad in g
lo cat ed on ly in th e ta bl e of co nt en ts of th ei r op en in g br ie f, whi ch ot he rwis e co nt ai ns

no ex pl an at io n o f th e arg um en t o r ci ta ti on to rel ev an t au th or it y ”).

Ch av ero -Lin ares waiv ed he r cl ai m s ag ai ns t McDa ni el

, Moor e, N ap oli ta no, an d

Sm it h by no t rai si ng or m ean in gf ul ly arg ui ng th em in he r br ie f. Sh e di d no t rai se he r
cl ai m s fo r su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s or fai lu re-t o- ha ve -a-c ust ody -p oli cy

. Se e Je nk in s , 54 0 F

. 3 d a t 75 1. Sh e di d no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue he r fai lu re-t o- tra in cl ai m ,

m en ti on in g it on ce in pa ss in g (an d wit ho ut m en ti on in g th e r e le va nt de fen da nt s,

Mo or e an d Sm it h)

. Se e Co x , 68 5 F .3d at 6 74 . And sh e di d no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue
he r fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect cl ai m ag ai ns t Sm it h, m en ti on in g hi m o n c e

— ge ne ric al ly, in a

se ct io n h ead in g. Se e id

.

B.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l of th e fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect

cl ai m ag ai ns t Don ne ll y

. Se e i d

. a t 66 8. “ [A] co m

pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t

fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on it s face .”

-3

-As hcr of

t v. Iq ba l

, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Thi s

co ur t m ay affi rm a d i s miss al on an y ba si s su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Phip ps v.

F.D.I.C. , 41 7 F .3d 10 06 , 10 10 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo t h e g r a n t of su m m ary jud gm en t to Bea dl e on th e

fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect cl ai m

. Se e Tor ge rs o n v . C

it y of Ro ches te r , 6 43 F.3 d 10 31 , 1 04 2
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m mary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe n th ere is “ no

ge nu in e di sp ut e as to a n y mat eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w.” Fed. R. Civ . P. 56( a) . “ A pro pe rly su pp or te d m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t is no t de feat ed by se lf- se rv in g affi da vi ts

. Rat he r , t h e pl ai nt iff m us t

subs ta nti at e al le ga ti on s wit h su ffi ci en t pr ob at iv e ev id en ce th at wou ld pe rm it a fi ndi ng

in th e pl ai nt iff ’s fav or .” Fr ever t v. Fo rd Mo to r Co

. , 61 4 F.3 d 46 6, 47 3- 74 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, ci ta ti on , an d al te rat io n om it te d)

. Bu t, a co ur t “ m us t

v i ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e op po si ng pa rty.” To l a n v

. C o t to n , 1 34 S. Ct . 1 86 1, 18 66 , 1 86 8 (2 01 4) (p er cu ria m ) (in te rn al qu ot at i o n mar k s

om it te d) (“ By weig h i n g t h e ev id en ce an d reac hi ng fact ua l in fere nc es co nt rary to

Tol an ’s co mpe te nt evi de nc e , th e co ur t be lo w ne gl ect ed to ad he re to th e fu nd am en ta l

pr in ci pl e th at at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t st ag e, reas on ab le in fere nc es sh ou ld be dr awn

in fav or of t he no nm ov in g p art y .” (em ph as is ad de d) ).

“ Pri so n of

fic ia ls ha ve a du ty to pr ot ect pr is on ers fro m vi ol en ce at th e ha nd s of

ot he r pr is on ers .” Ho ld

en v. Hi rn er , 66 3 F.3 d 33 6, 34 0- 41 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ W it ho ut

ex pr es sl y an swe rin g t hi s qu es ti on , we ha ve us ed Far mer ’s su bjec ti ve m eas ur e of

de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to ev al ua te Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s by pr et ria l

de ta in ees ag ai ns t pr is on of fic ia ls .” Wa lt on v. Daw so n , 75 2 F.3 d 11 09

, 11 17 -1 8 (8 th

Ci r

. 2 0 1 4 ) ( fo ot no te om it te d)

. Se e Fa rm er v. Br enna n , 5 11 U.S. 8 25 , 8 37 (1 99 4)

.

“ To pr ov e un co ns ti tu ti on al fai lu re to pr ot ect fro m ha rm , [Ch av ero -Lin ares ] m us t

sh ow (1 ) an ‘objec ti ve ly, su ffi ci en tl y se rio us ’ de pr i v a t i o n , m ean in g th at [s he ] was

in carc erat ed un de r co nd it io ns po si ng a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of seri ou s ha rm , an d (2 ) th at

th e de fen da nt was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to th e su bs ta nt ia l ris k of se r i o us ha rm .”

-4

-Scho el

ch v. Mi tc hel

l

, 62 5 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), qu ot in g Fa rm er , 51 1 U.S.

at 83 4. “ The se co nd req ui rem en t is a su bjec ti ve tes t; th e d efen da nt m us t be ‘aware

of fact s fro m whi ch th e in fere nc e co ul d be dr awn th at a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of se rio us

ha rm ex is ts , a nd he m

us t al so dr aw th e in fere nc e.’” Id

. , qu ot in g Fa rm er , 5 11 U.S.

a t 8 3 7

. C ha ve ro -Lin ares “ m us t sh ow th at th e ha rm [s he ] su ffer ed fro m [th e
de fen da nt ’s] all eg ed fai lu re t o p ro te ct [he r] was ob jecti ve ly seri ou s.” Id

. at 1 04 7.

The co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d Don ne ll y

. Accep ti ng th e al le ga ti on s as t r ue , Ch av ero -Lin ares do es no t st at e a pl au si bl e cl ai m

. The al le ga ti on s es ta bl is h th at sh e

“ cal le d” Don ne ll y a n d im pl y th at sh e to ld hi m ab ou t th e “ th reat en in g st at em en ts ,”

whi ch “ al arm ed ” he r. On it s face

, th is do es no t es ta bl is h th at Don ne ll y was m ad e

“aw are of fact s fro m whi ch th e in fere nc e co ul d be dr awn th at a su bs ta nt ia l ri sk o f

se ri ou s ha rm e x is ts .” Id

. at 10 46 (em

ph as es ad de d)

. Ch av ero -Lin ares do es no t

al le ge , fo r ex am

pl e, th at sh e fear ed bo di ly in jury or th at sh e req ue st ed th e in m at e be

m ov ed

. Se e Y

ou ng v. Sel k

, 50 8 F.3d 86 8, 8 73 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) (affi rm in g d en ia l o f 2

su m m ary jud gm en t to co rrec ti on s of fic ers whe n in m at e “ te st ifi ed th at he to ld bo th th e
of fic ia ls th at he ha d be en th reat en ed by [an ot he r in m at e], th at hi s ci rcu m st an ces were

ur ge nt , th at he ne ed ed to be m ov ed im m ed ia te ly, an d t ha t i t was an em erg en cy ”).

The co ur t pr op erl y gr an t e d s um m ary jud gm en t to Bea dl e. The

co nt em po ran eo us ph ot o sh ows an in jury co ns is te nt wit h Bea dl e’s ob se rv at io n of “ a

li tt le red m ark on he r rig ht ch eek .” Ch av ero -Lin ares tre at ed it wit h on e pa in pi ll an d

di d no t req ue st m ed ic al a t te nt io n. No reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d su ch ha rm was

“ ob jecti ve ly se rio us .” S e e Scho el ch

, 62 5 F.3 d at 10 47

. Sh e fai ls to “ su bs ta nt ia te

Afte r th e co ur t de ni ed a m ot io n to am en d t h e di sm is sa l (wh ic h Ch av ero

2

Lin ares do es no t a p p e a l )

, sh e fil ed he r Res is ta nc e to Su m m ary Ju dg m en t. In an

a t t a ch ed affi da vi t, Ch av ero -Lin ares sa id sh e as ke d Don ne ll y to m ov e th e in mat e be fo re th e ch ai r in ci de nt

. In he r ap pe ll at e arg um en t ab ou t th e fai lu re-t o- pr ot ect cl ai m
ag ai ns t Don ne ll y , Ch av ero -Lin ares rel i e s ex cl us iv el y on he r al le ga ti on s in th e

co m pl ai nt

.

-5

-al le ga ti on s” of br ui si ng or a m il d conc us si on wit h an y “ pr ob at iv e ev id en ce th at wou ld

pe rm it a fin di ng in [h er] fav or .” Se e Fr ever t

, 61 4 F.3 d at 47 3- 74 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Ch av ero -Lin ares m is ta ke nl y rel ie s on ex ces si ve fo rce cas es to arg ue

th at sh e ne ed no t pr ov e a se rio us in jury. Se e Scho el

ch

, 62 5 F.3 d at 10 47 (“ The

ob jecti ve st an da rd th at m

us t be sa ti sf

ie d in a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m di ffer s
fro m th at ap pl ic ab le in th e ex ces si ve fo rce co nt ex t, whe re th e m al ic io us an d sa di st ic

us e of fo rce by pri

son of fi ci al s al way s vi ol at es ‘con te m po rary st an da rd s of de cen cy .’ ”
(q uo ti ng Wi lk in s v. Ga dd y , 55 9 U.S. 3 4, 3 7 (2 01 0) ).

Alt ern at iv el y , th e co ur t co rrec tl y fo un d th at Don ne ll y an d Bea dl e were en ti tl ed

to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y be cau se Ch av ero -Lin ares fai ls to es ta bl is h th at th ey vi ol at ed

he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. “ Qua li fie d im m un it y sh ie ld s a pu bl ic of

fic ia l fro m su it fo r
ci vi l d a mages whe n hi s co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig h t s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Ulr ic h v. Pop e Cnt y. , 71 5 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-