Tangreti v. Bachmann

• Decision Date: 28 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-3712,August Term 2020,19-3712
• Citation: 983 F.3d 609
• Parties: Cara TANGRETI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christine BACHMANN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

983 F.3d 609

Cara TANGRETI, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Christine BACHMANN, Defendant-Appellant.^*

No. 19-3712

August Term 2020

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: October 14, 2020

Decided: December 28, 2020

Antonio Ponvert III, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew B. Beizer, Assistant Attorney General, for William Tong, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Walker and Menashi, Circuit Judges.^†

Menashi, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellee Cara Tangreti was a prison inmate at York Correctional Institute from August 2013 to November 2014. During her incarceration, Tangreti was sexually abused on numerous occasions over the course of several months by three correctional officers—Jeffrey Bromley, Matthew Gillette, and Kareem Dawson—all of whom were later terminated from their employment with the Department of Corrections and criminally prosecuted.

Tangreti subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight prison supervisors alleging, inter alia , that they violated the Eighth Amendment by displaying deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse by the three correctional officers. The district court granted summary judgment to seven of the eight defendants for the § 1983 claims but denied Defendant-Appellant Christine Bachmann's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Bachmann was grossly negligent and that she was not entitled to qualified immunity. Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity.

We conclude that Bachmann is entitled to qualified immunity because her actions did not "violate[ ] a statutory or constitutional right," let alone such a right "that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Taylor v. Barkes , 575 U.S. 822, 135 S. Ct. 2042, 2044, 192 L.Ed.2d 78 (2015). Following Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), courts may not apply a special rule for supervisory liability. Rather, the plaintiff must directly plead and prove that "each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Applying the proper standard, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence in the pretrial record for the inference that Bachmann, through her own actions, displayed deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse. Even considering only Tangreti's version of the facts, the pretrial record does not support the inference that Bachmann had subjective knowledge that Tangreti was at a substantial risk of sexual abuse. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 829, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). It is not sufficient, as the district court maintained, that Bachmann should have known of the substantial risk of sexual abuse.

Accordingly, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Bachmann.

BACKGROUND

I

From August 2013 to November 2014, Tangreti was incarcerated at York Correctional Institute. Over a period of several months in 2014, Tangreti was sexually abused on numerous occasions by three York correctional officers—Jeffrey Bromley, Matthew Gillette, and Kareem Dawson.

During this period, Tangreti lived on the first floor of the Davis Building. Dawson and Bromley were assigned to the first floor of the Davis Building. Correctional officers assigned to the first floor had an office on that floor. Tangreti was sexually abused by Bromley from May 2014 through September 2014, and by Dawson starting in March 2014. Gillette sexually abused Tangreti twice on the two days that Gillette was assigned to the Davis Building in September 2014. Tangreti did not formally report these incidents to any of the staff until October 31, 2014. On that date, Bachmann and Captain Alex Smith, who supervised the correctional officers, learned from another inmate that Tangreti was being sexually abused and questioned Tangreti about it.¹ York allows an inmate to submit an inmate request form or inmate administrative remedy anonymously, but Tangreti did not use these mechanisms.

During the period of sexual abuse, Bachmann was a counselor supervisor in the Davis Building and had an office on the first floor. As a counselor supervisor, Bachmann oversaw the day-to-day operations of the Marilyn Baker Substance Abuse Program, which is based in the Davis Building. Bachmann was not Tangreti's individual counselor, but she did interact with the inmates in the substance abuse program, including Tangreti.

In her role as a counselor supervisor, Bachmann was not specifically responsible for compliance matters related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA"), 34 U.S.C. §§ 30301 et seq . However, if a PREA incident occurred in the Davis Building, Bachmann would ensure that the proper paperwork was completed and forwarded to the PREA Coordinator.

Because she had an office on the first floor of the Davis Building, Bachmann worked alongside Bromley and Dawson. She did not know Gillette. On two occasions Bachmann observed inappropriate interactions between Tangreti and Bromley. Once, Bachmann noticed Tangreti "lingering at the doorway" of the first-floor office while Bromley sat behind the desk. Tangreti , 2019 WL 4958053, at *19. Another time, Bachmann witnessed Bromley and Tangreti speaking in the laundry room of the Davis Building. Bachmann described the conversation as "inappropriate" because "they were talking about other staff members." Id. In response, Bachmann claims that she removed Bromley and Tangreti from the laundry room and told Bromley to "knock it off"—that he "d[idn't] need to be talking to inmates about staff, period." J. App'x 228. Bachmann also claims that she discussed these incidents with Smith but did not take any further action because she did not consider the incidents to be serious. Tangreti disputes that such a discussion occurred.

In July 2015, the Department of Corrections Security Division's Investigative Office interviewed Bachmann. She reported that she had "seen some questionable behavior with Bromley in the past," including "him being too close to the inmates, and having the inmates in the office when they have no reason to be," and that "he was always walking the line of inappropriateness." Tangreti , 2019 WL 4958053, at *20. She also reported that she had observed that Tangreti and Bromley were frequently around each other and that other inmates had complained about their closeness.

Bachmann further reported that leading up to October 31, 2014, she noticed a change in Tangreti's behavior and physical appearance. Tangreti appeared "anxious," often visited Bachmann's office, and said that she was "very emotional, crying all the time and she didn't know why." Id. Bachmann also observed that Tangreti was "not getting up, or wearing makeup on a regular basis, and she had definitely gained weight, but not a huge amount." Id.

On October 31, 2014, Bachmann and Smith questioned Tangreti about the sexual abuse. Tangreti admitted that she had sexual encounters with the three correctional officers. York officials instituted the PREA protocol, which included medical care for Tangreti and separation from the officers. Tangreti's allegations were reported to the Connecticut State Police, resulting in the arrest and prosecution of the three officers. A formal investigation by the Department of Corrections Security Division substantiated Tangreti's allegations, and the three officers as well as Crowley were terminated from their employment with the Department of Corrections. Bromley and Gillette entered guilty pleas in their criminal cases and were incarcerated.

II

Tangreti subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight supervisory officials at the Department of Corrections alleging that the officials violated the Eighth Amendment by exhibiting deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse by the three officers.² At the close of discovery, all eight defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims to every defendant but Bachmann.

The district court denied summary judgment to Bachmann because Bachmann "was conceivably personally involved" in the violations against Tangreti. Tangreti , 2019 WL 4958053, at *19. The district court based its ruling on prior case law establishing that supervisors may be liable under § 1983 for gross negligence in supervising subordinates who commit the wrongful acts or for failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. Id. (relying on Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir. 1995) ). The district court also held that Bachmann is not entitled to qualified immunity because "[t]he law in the Second Circuit at the time clearly established that prison inmates had a constitutional right to be protected from sexual abuse and that prison supervisors could be liable under § 1983 for gross negligence in supervising subordinates or for failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring." Id. at *21 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

Bachmann timely appealed to this court.

DISCUSSION

Bachmann argues on appeal that she is immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity because her actions did not "violate[ ] a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." Taylor , 135 S. Ct. at 2044. We agree.

I

As a threshold matter, we must consider our jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Ordinarily, a district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable because it is a nonfinal decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ("The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts."); Ortiz v. Jordan , 562 U.S. 180, 188, 131...