Harden, et al. v. Hedgecock

Circuit 10Jul 14, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 58/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Tenth Circuit held that inmates Shaun Smith and Savanaha Works failed to establish municipal liability against Sheriff B.J. Hedgecock for their alleged sexual abuse by jailers. Even assuming their constitutional rights were violated, the court found no evidence that the sheriffs’ staffing or supervisory policies were maintained with deliberate indifference, so it affirmed summary judgment for the Sheriff.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether consent is a valid defense (and who bears the burden of proving non-consent) in prisoner sexual-abuse claims brought under the Eighth Amendment/§1983.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 8Circuit 10(this circuit)

Consent is a defense; burden remains on prisoner to prove non-consent (no presumption of non-consent).

Circuit 6Circuit 9

Rebuttable presumption that inmate sexual activity is non-consensual; defendant must overcome the presumption to rely on consent.

Conflict Summary

Some circuits treat inmate consent as an available defense and place the burden on the prisoner to prove non-consent, while others adopt a rebuttable presumption that prisoners cannot consent to sexual activity with custodial staff, thereby shifting the burden to defendants to prove consent.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Misty Harden and Robert Harden (guardians of Shaun Smith) and Savanaha Works
Appellee:Sheriff B.J. Hedgecock, in his official capacity

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Robert M. Blakemore (with Daniel Smolen), Smolen & Roytman, Tulsa, Oklahoma
Appellee:Alison B. Levine (with Wellon B. Poe), Collins Zorn & Wagner, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma