## Facts

- Jacquelyn Newby was incarcerated at the D.C. Jail (Southeast I) in July 1995.
- On three occasions that month, guards on duty directed female inmates, including Newby, to perform strip-shows and exotic dancing; inmates wore only g-strings and at least once danced nude.
- On one occasion, male guards were permitted to observe the dancing.
- No supervisory officials were present or on duty in the area during the incidents; the unit housed roughly 80–100 inmates.
- Inmate testimony indicated coercion: one inmate participated out of fear of physical retaliation if she refused.
- Another inmate testified she was beaten by a guard shortly after refusing to participate; the District conceded the beating was improper but disputed the motive.
- Newby also engaged in a sexual relationship with a guard involving private meetings and sexual touching.
- Newby sued the District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations and municipal liability based on custom/policy and failure to supervise and train.

## Issues

1. Whether the District of Columbia was liable under § 1983 for guards’ sexual exploitation of inmates because the misconduct resulted from a municipal policy or custom, or from deliberate indifference in supervision and training that was the moving force behind the violations.
2. Whether, after the District was fully heard at trial, the evidence was so one-sided that the court should grant judgment as a matter of law on municipal liability under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50.

## Decision

- The court granted the plaintiff’s Rule 50 motion and entered judgment as a matter of law against the District on liability.
- The court found the record established constitutional violations arising from guards’ coerced sexualized performances and sexual misconduct involving inmates.
- The court held the evidence compelled a finding that the District’s systemic failures in staffing, supervision, and training amounted to a municipal custom or policy and deliberate indifference under *Monell*.
- The court concluded no reasonable jury could find for the District on municipal liability; damages were left for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality is not liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory; liability requires that an official policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional injury.
- Municipal liability may be established where a failure to supervise or train reflects deliberate indifference to a known or obvious risk of constitutional violations and is the moving force behind the harm.
- Under Rule 50, a court may resolve an issue as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party.
- Coerced sexual exploitation of incarcerated persons by correctional staff can constitute cruel and unusual punishment and an actionable violation of constitutional bodily integrity.

## Conclusion

The court held that repeated, guard-directed strip-shows and related sexual misconduct—occurring amid the absence of supervisory oversight—proved, as a matter of law, that the District’s customs and deliberate indifference caused constitutional violations, warranting directed liability under Rule 50.


Newby v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 1999)