First Circuit Affirms Denial of Qualified Immunity to Maine Guards who Ogled Prisoner During Childbirth
On September 3, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity (QI) for a pair of Maine jailers whom a prisoner accused of violating her civil rights by helping themselves to a good look at her naked body during a stay at a local hospital to deliver a baby.
Jaden Brown was pregnant when she began serving a 15-month sentence at the Cumberland County Jail (CCJ) in July 2018. On February 10, 2019, Brown went into labor and was transported at around 11 a.m. to the Maine Medical Center (MMC). There she gave birth to a baby girl at around 1 a.m. the next morning.
CCJ policy provided that jail guards are not allowed in “the delivery room when (a prisoner) is giving birth.” That policy was consistent with Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30-A, § 1582(4), which provides that “[w]hen a prisoner … is admitted to a medical facility … for labor or childbirth, a corrections officer may not be present in the room during labor or childbirth unless specifically requested by medical personnel.”
No such request was made while Brown was at MMC. But Brown had invited another guard who was also a woman, Angel Dufour, to remain with her in the hospital room. At shift change at around 10:45 p.m., Dufour was replaced by guards Sam Dickey and Carrie Brady. Dufour reminded Dickey of CCJ’s policy concerning his presence in the room, and Dickey responded, “OK.” Supervisor Daniel Haskell was also present in the room from shift change until about 11:30 p.m.
In her civil complaint, Brown alleged that Haskell was again present in the room at around 7:30 p.m. during a cervical exam that required Brown to spread her legs as medical personnel inserted gloved fingers into her vagina. Dickey was present during later cervical exams, as well as when Brown’s stomach and breasts were exposed to monitor the baby’s heartbeat. Dickey was also present in the room during childbirth.
Brown alleged Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations against Haskell and Dickey. They moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity (QI). The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed Brown’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, but it also denied the jailers QI. Haskell and Dickey filed an interlocutory appeal.
They claimed that the record contained no evidence that they “made any observation of Brown’s naked body—let alone that they made more than inadvertent, occasional, casual, and/or restricted observations of her naked body,” which were insufficient to constitute an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, according to Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir. 1991).
But the First Circuit said that a Cookish Fourth Amendment violation can occur whenever a guard of the opposite sex views a prisoner’s naked body during “personal activities, such as undressing, showering, and using the toilet.” Moreover, Haskell and Dickey relied solely “on the direct evidence of their own self-serving statements that they did not see Brown’s naked body,” which she disputed. According to her, Dickey was a few feet from her bed during the duration of delivery and “could see, hear, and smell everything that was happening.” In fact, Dickey’s notes stated, “Delivery happening!” and “Pushing …” and “Baby girl born!” Likewise, Haskell was in the room during the cervical examination that required Brown to be exposed.
The problem for the guards’ appeal, the First Circuit said, was that it lacked jurisdiction over a QI claim predicated on an assertion that what the plaintiff says is “untrue, unproven, warrant[s] a different spin, tell[s] only a small part of the story, [or] is presented out of context.” Because circumstantial evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Haskell and Dickey viewed Brown’s naked body, their appeal to denial of QI was dismissed, and the district court’s judgment was otherwise affirmed. Before the Court, Brown was represented by attorneys with the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center in Washington, D.C., and the Institute for Justice in Seattle. See: Brown v. Dickey, 117 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024).
Related legal case
Brown v. Dickey
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 117 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |