It's weird that she joined with a ruling that did hold a county liable, in another similar case. Why was she seeing the county as negligent in one case but not the other?
Different fact patterns.
In the case where the county was held liable, there had been a prior incident of inappropriate sexual conduct by a guard and the county jail did nada in response.
That county also refused state materials on sexual misconduct.
The standard for gov't liability is rather high in these cases.
The Chief Appeals Circuit Judge Diane Wood stated: “The question is whether the country created an environment that showed
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm.” That was during the oral arguments, and is a seriously high bar to clear.
Fwiw, Diane Wood was my Civil Procedure prof, a nice enough woman and solid professor if a little dull. Her husband at the time Dennis Hutchinson was a much more interesting character and a more lively teacher. His course on slavery era law was the second best class I took there.
Both cases decided at the fed appeals level there was no county liability, but the 2-1 decision in one case was overturned by the full circuit en banc. Meaning plaintiffs/victims got kind of lucky there (the one dissent almost certainly saved them). The full panel decision was issued just this May and interestingly the 7-4 decision involved 6 female judges who favored liability for the sexual assaults by a margin of 5-1. The males judges split 2-3 against liability.
It should be noted that Amy C-B didn't write either opinion and her vote wasn't needed for the outcome in either. So these were low pressure decisions for her.
I'd also note that the abuse in the liability case was much worse and much more extensive (3 years and many women), and the perp guard got a 30 year sentence, whereas in the other case involved one (pregnant) woman, a few incidents and the guard lost his job but plead guilty to a lesser charge and did no time.
Poll
5 (45.5%)