Opinion ID: 3165721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DO Johnson

Text: Appellants’ brief argues we have jurisdiction to consider DO Johnson’s appeal because “a question of law exists as to whether a jailer’s decision to assist a nurse in the jail’s medical unit during a medical emergency satisfies the deliberate indifference requirement to establish liability when that jailer believed [Ms. Henderson] was secure within a locked holding cell.” Aplt. Br. at 6. This argument does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of the facts or view the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson. Because it instead challenges the district court’s factual determinations, we lack jurisdiction over DO Johnson’s appeal. Ms. Henderson asserted in her summary judgment briefing and asserts on appeal that DO Johnson knew the door to the tub room was unlocked when she left the medical unit hallway. DO Johnson’s argument8 does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of this fact. The district court did not make any factual determination about DO Johnson’s knowledge of the door being unlocked, but it did determine that DO Johnson was aware of a substantial risk of harm to Ms. Henderson. DO Johnson’s argument is therefore not based on the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson. 8 Although the opening brief was filed on behalf of all Appellants, we refer to a particular appellant—in this instance DO Johnson—when the argument in the brief is specific to that person. - 15 - Instead, DO Johnson’s argument presents “a challenge to the district court’s conclusion [that Ms. Henderson] presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.” Castillo, 790 F.3d at 1018. We may not consider it on appeal unless the district court’s view of the facts is blatantly contradicted by the record or the court failed to specify the facts on which it rested its denial of qualified immunity to DO Johnson. The district court’s factual determination of DO Johnson’s awareness of the risk of assault is not clearly contradicted by the record. 9 Further, although the district court did not say whether a reasonable jury could find that DO Johnson knew the door was unlocked when she left the hallway of the medical unit, the court determined there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether DO Johnson was aware of a risk of assault to Ms. Henderson based on (1) DO Johnson’s failure to secure Inmates Johnson and Williams before leaving the hallway of the medical unit, (2) her failure to check on Ms. Henderson before leaving, and (3) her inability to express why there was no risk of assault to Ms. Henderson. DO Johnson’s argument challenges the district court’s finding of a disputed issue regarding risk awareness. 9 Indeed, the record indicates that when DO Johnson was asked whether she knew the door to the tub room was unlocked, she answered the following: Okay. Yes, I unlocked the door. Yes, the medical emergency happened. Yes, I went down to the treatment room. It is always my practice to lock the door. I didn’t lock the door. Aplt. App. at 632. - 16 - Under this circumstance, where the district court specified the facts on which it based the denial of summary judgment, see Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319, we lack jurisdiction over DO Johnson’s interlocutory appeal because it “would require secondguessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency,” Medina, 252 F.3d at 1130.