PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 18-1688 ____________ E. D. v. DANIEL SHARKEY; BERKS COUNTY RESIDENTIAL CENTER IMMIGRATION FAMILY CENTER, (BCRC- IFC); COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA; DIANE EDWARDS, DIRECTOR OF BCRC-IFC; JOHN BEHM; JAMIE HIMMELBERGER; BRITTNEY ROTHERMEL; ERIKA TAYLOR; MATTHEW MALINOWSKI; JEREMIAH/JOSH PETRY, ICE EMPLOYEE COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA; DIANE EDWARDS, DIRECTOR OF BCRC-IFC; JAMIE HIMMELBERGER; BRITTNEY ROTHERMEL; ERIKA TAYLOR; MATTHEW MALINOWSKI, Appellants ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 5-16-cv-02750) District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith ____________ Argued March 6, 2019 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, AMBRO and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 1, 2019) Matthew J. Connell [ARGUED] Tricia M. Ambrose MacMain Law Group 433 West Market Group Suite 200 West Chester, PA 19382 Counsel of Appellant Su Ming Yeh [ARGUED] Angus R. Love Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project 718 Arch Street Suite 304 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Matthew J. Archambeault Law Office of Matthew J. Archambeault 1420 Walnut Street Suite 1188 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel of Appellee Sandra S. Park American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Mary Catherine Roper American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Counsel for Amicus Appellees 2 ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ____________ RESTREPO, Circuit Judge E.D., a female immigration detainee at the Berks County Residential Center -Immigration Family Center (BCRC), brought a § 1983 action against employee Daniel Sharkey, alleging that he violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity after the two had sexual relations. Included in the suit were Sharkey’s co-workers and supervisor at BCRC (collectively, the “Defendants”), who E.D. alleged were deliberately indifferent to the violation, as well as Berks County, which allegedly failed to implement policies to prevent the violating conduct. The Defendants and Berks County moved for summary judgment, arguing that the individual staff members were entitled to qualified immunity and that E.D. could not prove a municipal liability claim against the County. The District Court denied their motion, and they have filed this interlocutory appeal.1 In determining whether to affirm the denial of qualified immunity, we necessarily address whether immigration detainees are entitled to the same constitutional protections afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as pre-trial detainees. We hold that immigration detainees are entitled to such protections and, for the reasons that follow, will dismiss the appeal pertaining to Berks County for lack of appellate jurisdiction and will affirm the denial of the Defendants’ request for qualified immunity. I. Factual and Procedural Background 1 In the same order, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants John Behm and the BCRC, and granted judgment in favor of Berks County with regard to claims for punitive damages against the County. No appeal arose from these rulings. 3 E.D. entered the United States with her three-year-old son in or around May 2014, seeking refuge from domestic violence and sexual assault in Honduras. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals