Opinion ID: 3208802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sheriff Stanley

Text: We dispose of the claims against Sheriff Stanley on the clearly-established-law prong. “[W]e inquire whether, under [Mr. Wright’s] version of the facts, then-extant clearly established law would have given Sheriff [Stanley] fair warning that he could be held liable for his conduct under a supervisory-liability theory for violating [Mr. Wright’s due-process] rights.” Cox, 800 F.3d at 1247. The district court found the following facts to be uncontested or (if favorable to the nonmovant, Mr. Wright) supported by sufficient evidence: Inmate-on-inmate violence at the jail was rare and did not increase appreciably with overcrowding conditions, although overcrowding made the jail dangerous for the staff; overcrowding had been a recurring condition since at least 2008 and Sheriff Stanley was aware of this; between October 2007 and May 2011 the state health department cited the jail at least seven times for violations based in part on overcrowding; a 2009 report by a jail consultant stated, “The county jail is almost 32 years old. It is not safe for the jail staff or inmates. The jail does not meet any state jail standards, or state fire codes,” Aplt. App. (No. 15-6123) Vol. 14, at 268; in an effort to obtain funding for a new jail, Sheriff Stanley created and circulated a campaign flyer in 2009 describing the jail as overcrowded and asserting that a new jail was necessary to “PROTECT Inmates from -7- injuring each other and themselves,” id.; the jail was overcrowded for 896 days preceding the assault on Mr. Wright; at the time Mr. Wright was arrested, a new jail was being constructed, but it had not improved conditions at the existing jail; in 2009, Sheriff Stanley requested the local district attorney and a judge to reduce the amount of bonds on incoming inmates to help reduce overcrowding; between 2008 and August 2011, Sheriff Stanley contacted five other counties, once each, to ask if they could take overflow inmates, but did not contact any other nearby counties; in 2009 the Custer County Jail agreed to allow jail inmates to be housed there; the Woodward City Jail agreed to take a few inmates if it had room; and Sheriff Stanley “failed to utilize other interim measures, such as early release, bond reduction, and ankle monitor bracelets,” id. at 270. Although Sheriff Stanley argued that Mr. Wright had not presented evidence that the suggested remedies were feasible (and Mr. Wright has not disputed that a sheriff was required to take all prisoners brought for booking), the district court said it should not weigh the evidence on the matter. It concluded that Sheriff Stanley’s supervisory conduct could be considered unconstitutional because it was clearly established that “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Id. at 275 (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). But the law governing a sheriff’s obligations in these circumstances was not clearly established. The issue is whether case law existing as of August 2011 would alert any reasonable sheriff that he had a constitutional duty to reduce overcrowding by any of the measures suggested by Mr. Wright. But neither Mr. Wright nor the district court has cited such case law. Sheriff Stanley is entitled to qualified immunity. -8-