N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TOB Y M E AGHER , through his Litiga tion Gua rdia n JOSHUA B R OTHER S, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R ODNEY PRIOLEAU, Offic e r; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts,
and KING C OUNTY; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts. No. 20-35635 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-00259-JLR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 17, 2021 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C HR ISTEN, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED AUG 27 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiff Toby M e a ghe r wa s bruta lly

atta c ke d by

his c e l lm ate Troy

Le a e at the K ing C ounty

Ja i l (KC J ) an d sue d KC J a nd se v e ra l ja il e m

p loy e e s, pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983, a

rguing the y

should ha

ve prote c te d M e a ghe r from Le a e
— who ha d a long history

of unprovoke d atta c ks on sta ff and de ta ine e s . The distric t c ourt de nie d qua lifie d

im m unity to thre e individual de fe nda nts: Jose ph Ga rc ia , R o dne y Priole a u, a nd Gre g g C urtis. The y

file d this interloc utory

a ppe a l of only

the distric t
c ourt’ s c o nc lusion tha

t M e a ghe r’ s rights we re c le arly e sta blishe d whe n Le a e
atta c k e d him . W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, 1 and we a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s ruling. 2 W e re vie w the de nia l of qua lifie d im m unity de novo. Se e K

e nne dy v . C ity of Ridge f ie ld , 439 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a c c e pt M e a ghe r’ s ve rsion of the fa c ts a s true , a

nd dra w a ll re a sona

ble infe re nc e s in his fa

v or. Se e Plumhoff v

. Ric k ard, 572 U.S. 765, 768 (2014). “ [Q] ua lifie d im m unity prote c t s gove rnm e nt offic ia ls ‘ from lia

bility for c ivil da

m a ge s insofa

r a s the ir c onduc t doe s not viola te
c le arly e sta blishe d sta

tutory or c onstitutiona

l rights of whic h a

re a s ona ble pe rson

1 M e a ghe r argue s we la c k jurisdic t ion ove r this a

ppe a l be c a

use the distric t c ourt c onc lude d the re are tria ble issue s of fa c t, a

n d be c a use the de fe nda

nts fa il to sta te the fa c ts in thelight m o s t favora ble to him
. W e m a inta in jurisdic tion to re vie w the “ pure ly

le g a l” que stion of whe the r his rights were c l e arly e sta blishe d. Pauluk v . Sav age , 836 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C ir. 2016). 2 The pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thefa c ts, a

nd we re c ite the m only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the issue s on a

ppe a l. 2would ha

ve known.’ ” P e arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v . Fitzge rald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). To de te rm ine whe the r to gra nt qua lifie d im

m unity , c ourts c onside r two
e le m e nts, a

nd the c o urt m a

y c onside r the m

in a ny orde r: “ (1) whe t

he r the re ha s be e n a viola

tion of a c onstitutiona

l right; a nd (2) whe the r that right wa s c le arly
e sta blishe d at the tim e of the offic e r’ s a lle ge d m isc onduc t.” Lal v . C alifornia , 746 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita tion omitte d). A right is c le a rly e s ta blishe d if its “ c ontours” are “ suffic ie ntly c le ar that a

re a sona b l e offic ia l would understa nd that what he is doing viola

te s tha t right.” Sauc ie r v . K

atz , 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (c ita

tion omitte d). To c o nstitutesuc h notic e , prior “p re c e de nt m ust be

‘ “ c ontrolling”

— from the Ninth C irc u it or Supre m e C ourt— or othe rwise be
e m bra c e d by a “ c o nse nsus” of c ourts outside the re le va

nt jurisdic tion.’ ” Martine z
v . C ity of C lov is , 943 F.3d 1260, 1275 (9th C i r. 2019) (quoting Sharp v . C ounty of Orange , 871 F.3d 901, 911 (9th C ir. 2017)). The Eighth Am e ndm e n t prote c ts prisone rs from the inflic tion of c rue l a

nd
unusua l punishm e nts. U.S. C onst. a m e nd. VIII. The Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t the d ue proc e ss rights of a

pre tria l de ta ine e , se c ure d via the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt, “ a

re at le a st a s gre at a s the Eighth Am e ndm e nt prote c tions a va ila ble to a c onvic te d prisone r.” C ity of Re v e rev . Mass. Ge n. Hosp. , 463 U.S. 239, 244

3(1983). In Farme r v . Bre n n an , the Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d tha t “ [h] aving inc a rc e ra te d ‘ pe rsons [with] de m onstra te d proc livit[ie s ] for antisoc ia l c rim ina l, and ofte n v iole n t, c o nduc t ,’ ” “ prison offic ia l s ha v e a duty . . . to prote c t prisone rs from viole nc e at the ha

nds of othe r prisone rs” be c a use prison offic ia ls ha

ve “ strippe d the m of virtua lly

e ve ry m e ans of se lf-prote c tion a nd fore c lose d the i r a c c e ss to outsidea i d . . . .” 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (e m pha sis a dde d) (c ita

tions omitte d). W e a pplie d the se princ iple s in C astro v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 833 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba n c ) (de ny ing qua lifie d im m unity on sim ila r fa c ts), de c ide d ne arly two y e ars be fore Le a e ’ s a ssa ult on M e a ghe r. He re , de fe nda

nts a rgue tha t no c le a rly e s ta blishe d a uthority sta te s tha t a de ta ine e ’ s right to be

fre e from viole nc e at the ha

nds of othe r de ta ine e s re quire s ja il pe rsonne l to e va l u ate unprove n, a ne c d ota l a lle gations of violenc e in his a ssa ila nt’ s prote c te d he a lth inform ation. Thedistric t c o urt c o nc lude d this “na rrow fra m ing of the right” wa s “ una

va iling,” give n our de c i sion in C a s tro . W e a gre e . C le arly
e sta blishe d a uthority ne e d not ha

ve “ ide ntic a l or e ve n ‘ m ate ria lly sim ila r’ fa c ts” ; it
ne e d only have provide d de fe nda

nts fa ir wa

rning tha t the i r c onduc t (a s a lle g e d by M e a ghe r) wa s unla

wful. Se e Se rrano v . Franc is , 345 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th C ir. 2003). W e c onc l ude M e a ghe r’ s rights we re c le arly e sta blishe d be c a

use , a fte r Farme r and C

astro , “ [n] one of the de fe nda nts c an c la im ignora

nc e to a prisone r’ s
4right to beprote c te d from viole nc e at the ha

nds of othe r inm at e s.” W ilk v . N e v e n , 956 F.3d 1143, 1150 (9th C ir. 2020). AFFIRM E D.

5