CJ, concurring:
Insufficient 8A deliberate indifference claim where prison guards didn't have subjective knowledge of risk to detainee posed by leaving the cell door controls unlocked.
The situation doesn't correspond to a clearly established right -- negligence, perhaps.
Concur in part, concurring in the judgment:
Supervisor's knowledge of the risk can't be imputed to the guards.
Not a clearly established right, so no need to reach the deliberate indifference calculus, given qualified immunity.
Although there's no qualified immunity for Monell claims, the right has to be established in order to show the need to train employees.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part:
Claims against supervisor and municipality presented genuine issue for trial on deliberate indifference.
Central question on the deliberate indifference claim is whether it was reasonable to keep the controls unlocked.