ARGUMENT
I. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CONSENTED TO AND WELCOMED THE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH DEFENDANTS. There remains a split in authority as to whether, as a matter of law, an inmate can consent to sexual relations with a correctional officer. Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F. Supp. 2d 448, 460 (D. Del. 1999). The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held that an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights are not violated when she consents to sexual relations with a guard. Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1339 (8th Cir. 1997). In support of this position, the Eighth Circuit stated that “welcome and voluntary sexual interactions, no matter how inappropriate, cannot as a matter of law constitute …show more content…
Jarvis, a nonphysical relationship between plaintiff, an inmate, and defendant, a correctional officer, ensued, eventually morphing into an intimate, physical relationship consisting of multiple sexual encounters. McGregor v. Jarvis, No. 9:08-CV-770 (GLS/RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97408, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2010). Defendant initiated the sexual contact, but plaintiff neither objected to or refused any of defendant’s advances, and at no time did defendant physically force the plaintiff to engage in the sexual encounters. Id. Over time, defendant obtained minor work related privileges for plaintiff and brought him contraband. Id. In addition, the duo exchanged written correspondences. Id. at *1. During their last sexual encounter, they were discovered by another corrections officer. Id. at *5. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at *1. However, during the relationship, plaintiff never attempted to communicate with any other official about the relationship. Id. at *6. One issue presented was whether plaintiff consented to the sexual relationship, thereby nullifying or obviating any Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at *26. Plaintiff asserted that, in accordance with New York Penal Law Section 130.05, as an inmate, he was incapable of consenting to the sexual acts. Id. at *27. The court held that it is true that, for criminal prosecution purposes, an inmate …show more content…
None of the facts in our case signal that Plaintiff did not want to engage in the sexual encounters with Defendants. In fact, unlike the plaintiff in McGregor, Plaintiff initiated many of the sexual encounters. For example, on August 30, 2016, Plaintiff invited Defendant Logan into her cell for, as she put it, “a bit of fun in this boring place.” While the defendant in McGregor initiated the sexual contact, the facts in our case show that Plaintiff Vasquez initiated the friendship with Defendant Diaz, frequently passed him notes voluntarily, and willingly invited Defendant Logan into her cell on four occasions for consensual sexual
I. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CONSENTED TO AND WELCOMED THE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH DEFENDANTS. There remains a split in authority as to whether, as a matter of law, an inmate can consent to sexual relations with a correctional officer. Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F. Supp. 2d 448, 460 (D. Del. 1999). The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held that an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights are not violated when she consents to sexual relations with a guard. Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1339 (8th Cir. 1997). In support of this position, the Eighth Circuit stated that “welcome and voluntary sexual interactions, no matter how inappropriate, cannot as a matter of law constitute …show more content…
Jarvis, a nonphysical relationship between plaintiff, an inmate, and defendant, a correctional officer, ensued, eventually morphing into an intimate, physical relationship consisting of multiple sexual encounters. McGregor v. Jarvis, No. 9:08-CV-770 (GLS/RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97408, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2010). Defendant initiated the sexual contact, but plaintiff neither objected to or refused any of defendant’s advances, and at no time did defendant physically force the plaintiff to engage in the sexual encounters. Id. Over time, defendant obtained minor work related privileges for plaintiff and brought him contraband. Id. In addition, the duo exchanged written correspondences. Id. at *1. During their last sexual encounter, they were discovered by another corrections officer. Id. at *5. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at *1. However, during the relationship, plaintiff never attempted to communicate with any other official about the relationship. Id. at *6. One issue presented was whether plaintiff consented to the sexual relationship, thereby nullifying or obviating any Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at *26. Plaintiff asserted that, in accordance with New York Penal Law Section 130.05, as an inmate, he was incapable of consenting to the sexual acts. Id. at *27. The court held that it is true that, for criminal prosecution purposes, an inmate …show more content…
None of the facts in our case signal that Plaintiff did not want to engage in the sexual encounters with Defendants. In fact, unlike the plaintiff in McGregor, Plaintiff initiated many of the sexual encounters. For example, on August 30, 2016, Plaintiff invited Defendant Logan into her cell for, as she put it, “a bit of fun in this boring place.” While the defendant in McGregor initiated the sexual contact, the facts in our case show that Plaintiff Vasquez initiated the friendship with Defendant Diaz, frequently passed him notes voluntarily, and willingly invited Defendant Logan into her cell on four occasions for consensual sexual