Failure to Protect

Granting qualified immunity to prison supervisor for sexual abuse of prisoner by three guards; court holds there is no “special rule” for supervisory liability, plaintiff must plead and prove that “each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution,” citing Iqbal; that means the claim against the supervisor must satisfy the elements of the constitutional claim; supervisor here entitled to qualified immunity because record did not establish that supervisor had required subjective knowledge that plaintiff was at a substant

Plaintiff alleged that officers were deliberately indifferent and allowed him to be assaulted in custody; court declines to extend Kingsley to deliberate indifference claims, relying on its decision in Strain v. Regalado, 977 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2020) (claim of alleged medical indifference), and found there was no subjective indifference in this case, thus no liability, because the time interval between when the officer became aware of the attack on plaintiff and when he responded was too short to conclude his response was unreasonable.

For the first time, First Circuit recognizes state created danger claim, finds it was clearly established by law in other circuits; finds viable claim against state police officers who did not seek to find, but left voice mail for perpetrator, a registered sex offender, who had abducted, threatened, and raped victim two days earlier and then subsequent to voice mail returned to rape and murder victim and those close to her, who had been afforded no protection by officers.

No liability for failure to protect kindergarten student from sexual assault by fifth grader on school bus; fifth grader’s prior misconduct did not put school on notice he posed risk of sexual assault.