Opinion ID: 3165721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheriff Glanz

Text: Appellants’ brief argues we have jurisdiction to consider Sheriff Glanz’s appeal because it presents an “abstract question[] of law” regarding whether “a § 1983 claim based on supervisory liability can be supported absent any allegation that the defendant/supervisor had any notice of the risk of inmate-on-inmate assault in the medical unit of the jail, based upon alleged understaffing and alleged insufficient video surveillance, when there had never been a documented instance of an inmate-on-inmate assault in the jail’s medical unit’s history.” 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 about the sheriff’s risk awareness and does not fall within one of the exceptions to the rule that we may only consider purely legal questions on appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, we lack jurisdiction over Sheriff Glanz’s appeal. The district court determined that Sheriff Glanz was not entitled to qualified immunity because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his awareness of the risk of assault to Ms. Henderson. The court acknowledged the Jail’s policies - 17 - regarding sexual assaults and double staffing in the medical unit. But it also noted the evidence of sexual assaults on L.P. and L.S. and the evidence suggesting there was often only one officer in the medical unit and no video surveillance. Based on these facts, the district court determined that a reasonable jury could find Sheriff Glanz had notice of a risk of assault to inmates and that he was unresponsive to this risk. Instead of accepting these facts as true or viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Henderson, Defendants argue Sheriff Glanz had no notice of a risk of assault because there had been no documented instances of inmate-on-inmate assault in the Jail. This argument ignores the district court’s factual determination that staff-oninmate assaults gave Sheriff Glanz notice about the risk of other kinds of assault— including the risk of sexual assault to female inmates by male inmates in the medical unit—caused by lack of surveillance and adequate staffing. Sheriff Glanz’s argument poses “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 this challenge on appeal unless the record clearly contradicts the district court’s factual determinations or the district court failed to identify the factual disputes on which it rested its decision to deny qualified immunity. Defendants do not argue that either circumstance arises here. The district court clearly stated, and the record does not contradict, the facts it relied on in denying qualified immunity to Sheriff Glanz. We lack jurisdiction over Sheriff Glanz’s interlocutory appeal because it “would require second-guessing the district court’s determinations of evidence sufficiency.” Medina, 252 F.3d at 1130. - 18 -