## Facts

- Stacy Graham was an inmate at the Logan County Jail in Oklahoma.
- Jail guard Rahmel Jefferies communicated with Graham over an intercom system and their conversations became personal and sexual.
- Graham and Jefferies exchanged sexually explicit communications, and Graham engaged in sexually suggestive behavior directed at Jefferies.
- After Graham was placed in solitary confinement for an unrelated disciplinary matter, guard Alexander Mendez also engaged her in sexual conversations; Graham expressed a fantasy involving two men and identified Jefferies as the other participant.
- Graham voluntarily allowed Mendez to view her naked in her cell.
- Jefferies and Mendez later entered Graham’s cell and engaged in sexual activity with her; Graham later testified she did not resist until near the end, when Mendez allegedly pushed her down and used degrading language before the encounter stopped due to nearby noise.
- Two weeks later, Graham reported the incident and initially told investigators the encounter was consensual and she reported it because she felt guilty.
- Both guards admitted the conduct and were terminated.
- Graham later reported anxiety and depression and described the incident as rape in treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine dispute of material fact on whether Graham consented to the sexual activity with the guards.
2. Whether an inmate’s consent may be a defense to an Eighth Amendment claim premised on sexual contact between correctional staff and a prisoner.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Sheriff and both guards.
- The court held the evidence was so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find lack of consent for the sexual encounter as a whole.
- The court held, as a matter of first impression in the circuit, that an inmate’s consent can be an available defense to an Eighth Amendment claim based on sexual contact with guards, at least on the facts presented.
- Because the court found no constitutional violation, it did not need to address other defenses or theories of liability in detail.

## Legal Principles

- An Eighth Amendment claim based on staff sexual misconduct is analyzed under excessive-force principles, requiring conduct incompatible with contemporary standards of decency and lacking legitimate penological justification.
- Consent is not categorically irrelevant in prisoner–staff sexual-contact cases; it may defeat an Eighth Amendment claim where the evidentiary record establishes voluntary participation.
- In the custodial context, consent must be scrutinized carefully, but it remains a fact question that can be resolved on summary judgment when the record does not permit a reasonable finding of coercion or nonconsent.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Graham’s extensive pre-incident conduct and post-incident statements established consent as a matter of law on this record, and it recognized that inmate consent may, in appropriate cases, bar an Eighth Amendment claim based on sexual contact with correctional staff.


Graham v. Sheriff of Logan Cnty., 741 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2013)