Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Trent Michael Taylor v. Robert Riojas, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 17-10253 · judgment December 20, 2019


GVR'd · November 2, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Respondents are prison officials who deliberately left Petitioner Trent Taylor naked for six days in two filthy cells; the first cell was covered from floor to ceiling in feces from previous residents, and in the second Petitioner had to sleep in a pool of sewage overflowing from a clogged drain. Petitioner brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Respondents’ conduct as violating the Eighth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the substantial risk of harm Respondents imposed on Petitioner was “especially obvious” and therefore unconstitutional. But the court nonetheless granted qualified immunity to Respondents on the theory that, although prior circuit precedent recognized the unconstitutionality of forcing prisoners to live in human waste, those cases involved longer periods of confinement and therefore did not clearly establish a constitutional violation under these precise circumstances. The questions presented are:

  1. When the unconstitutionality of government officials’ conduct is obvious, does that suffice to render the violation clearly established, as the Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have recognized in analogous cases, or must there also be binding precedent directly on point, as the Fifth Circuit held below?

  2. Are government officials entitled to qualified immunity so long as there is no prior precedent recognizing the unconstitutionality of an identical fact pattern, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held, or can prior precedent clearly establish a constitutional violation despite some factual variation, as the Third,

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Kelsi Brown Corkran
Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection

For respondent
Kyle Douglas Hawkins
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 4 conferences

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Dec 04 2020
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Nov 02 2020
    Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Justice Thomas dissents. Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)
  3. Oct 26 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
  4. Oct 13 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
  5. Oct 07 2020
    Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Texas. The electronic record on appeal (including sealed materials) was received.
  6. Oct 06 2020
    Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the Fifth Circuit. The record is available on PACER.
  7. Oct 05 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
  8. Oct 05 2020
    Record Requested.
  9. Jul 08 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
  10. Jul 07 2020
    Reply of petitioner Trent Michael Taylor filed. (Distributed)
  11. Jun 24 2020
    Brief of respondents Robert Riojas, et al. in opposition filed.
  12. Jun 01 2020
    Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
  13. May 14 2020
    Brief amici curiae of Cross-Ideological Groups Dedicated to Ensuring Official Accountability, Restoring the Public's Trust in Law Enforcement, and Promoting the Rule of Law filed.
  14. May 05 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 1, 2020.
  15. May 04 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  16. Apr 24 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 1, 2020)