## Facts

- Steven Howard was an inmate at the North Central Unit (NCU) in Arkansas.
- Howard filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against NCU employees, including Robert Henderson and Dustin Foret.
- Howard alleged that Henderson and Foret verbally sexually harassed him while he was incarcerated.
- Howard claimed the alleged conduct violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
- Henderson and Foret moved for summary judgment, arguing they were protected by qualified immunity.
- The federal district court denied Henderson and Foret’s summary-judgment motions on qualified-immunity grounds.
- Henderson and Foret filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit challenging the denial of qualified immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of verbal sexual harassment by prison employees, without alleged physical contact or other actionable injury, can constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and support a § 1983 claim.
2. Whether Henderson and Foret were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
3. Whether the Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity to the extent the appeal presented legal questions.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit exercised interlocutory jurisdiction over the qualified-immunity appeal to the extent it turned on legal sufficiency rather than disputed facts.
- The court concluded that verbal sexual harassment, standing alone and without alleged physical assault or a comparable deprivation, did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
- Because Howard’s allegations did not establish a constitutional violation, Henderson and Foret were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Henderson and Foret.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity bars damages liability unless (1) the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.
- An order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent it presents a purely legal question (for example, whether the alleged conduct violates clearly established law), as opposed to challenges to the district court’s view of the evidence.
- An Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim requires an objectively serious deprivation and a sufficiently blameworthy state of mind; courts generally treat verbal harassment, without more, as insufficient to meet that standard.

## Conclusion

Howard v. Everett involved an Arkansas inmate’s § 1983 claim that prison employees verbally sexually harassed him in violation of the Eighth Amendment; on interlocutory review, the Eighth Circuit held that verbal sexual harassment alone did not state an Eighth Amendment claim and that the employees were entitled to qualified immunity, reversing the denial of summary judgment and remanding for judgment in their favor.


Howard v. Everett, 208 F.3d 218 (2000)