Eighth Circuit Grants Summary Judgment to Sheriff and County of Nebraska Jail Where Guard Sexually Assaulted Female Prisoner
by Matt Clarke
On August 11, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the sheriff and county of a Nebraska jail where a guard sexually assaulted a female prisoner were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Anna Chernyy was sexually assaulted by guard Monty Roesler while she was incarcerated at the Saline County jail. Chernyy filed a federal civil rights action with pendent state tort law claims against Roesler, Sheriff Alan Moore and Saline County. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. They filed an interlocutory appeal.
Miami, Florida attorneys Gregory Vincent Alcaro and Gennaro Carligio, Jr., represented Chernyy on appeal.
The Eighth Circuit noted that Roesler was hired five years prior to the rape and went through the standard new-hire 80-hour training course at the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center. This included Prison Rape Elimination Act training. Further, he testified that he knew he was prohibited from having physical relationships with prisoners and that assaulting a prisoner was illegal. Although there were two prior minor complaints about Roesler, neither involved a sexual relationship and one was determined to be unfounded.
According to court documents, jail staff received two anonymous tips that Roesler had an “inappropriate relationship” with Chernyy the same day she reported having been raped by Roesler. “Moore ordered an investigation and sent a social worker to check on Chernyy,” according to court documents. “When the allegations were confirmed that afternoon, Moore asked the Nebraska State Patrol to take over the investigation. He fired Roesler hours later, after the State Patrol confirmed the assault. Roesler pleaded guilty to sexual assault and was sentenced to 366 days imprisonment.”
Chernyy claimed Moore failed to protect her and failed to train Roesler, and the county had Monell liability for Moore’s policy or custom of failing to protect and train. However, the Court held that her claim against Moore must fail because she “ha[d] not shown that it was clearly established that Moore’s ‘conduct was inappropriate in light of [the] risk’ she faced,” See: Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2015).
Further, “Chernyy never expressed concerns about Roesler to Moore or any other officer prior to the sexual assault.” Thus, Moore was entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to protect claim.
The Court wrote, “Moore is similarly entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to train claim because he did not violate any clearly established right ‘of which a reasonable person would have known,’” per Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010). The “finding that Moor—in his individual capacity—did not violate any clearly established right precludes a finding that the County—via Moore in his official capacity as its policymaker—exhibited deliberate indifference, so the County too is entitled to summary judgment,” the Court concluded, citing Szalba v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2007).
The Court reversed and remanded for the entry of summary judgment in favor of Moore and the county. See: Chernyy v. Roesler, 184 F.4th 1070 (8th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Chernyy v. Roesler
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 184 F.4th 1070 (8th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | District Court |