Henderson v Glanz

Henderson sued Glanz in his capacity as sheriff and two corrections officers alleging deliberate indifference allowing an inmate to rape her in the medical center of the jail. The district court denied Glanz ‘sand the officers’ motions for judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The panel dismissed in part and reversed in part. It dismissed as to Glanz and one of the officers holding their briefs did not accept the facts in the light most favorable to Henderson and instead challenged the district court’s factual findings and the panel lacked jurisdiction to second guess the district court. As to the other officer, the panel held the record blatantly contradicted the district court’s finding that the officer was are of danger to Henderson as the officer left eth medial area to assist in a medical emergency and believed the door to the room Henderson was in was locked. Turning to the merits, the panel held that there was no firmly established right under the facts here namely when an officer has no subjective knowledge of a risk of assault, leaves to help with a medical emergency and believes the door to the room an inmate is located is locked. Thus, qualified immunity applies and judgment must be entered for the second officer.