Rolle v. Wyoming Department of Corrections
Tenth Circuit Narrows §1983 “Failure-to-Train” Liability for Private Contractors and Confirms the Patient Self-Determination Act Does Not Apply to Prisons

1. Introduction

Court & Date: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 4 August 2025.

Parties:

• Plaintiff–Appellant: Donald Lee Rolle – Wyoming state prisoner proceeding pro se.
• Defendants–Appellees: Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC); individual WDOC officials; Corizon Corporation (private medical/dental contractor) and its employees.

Background: Rolle’s wide-ranging civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleged: (1) inadequate dental/medical treatment after a tooth extraction; (2) denial of medically necessary shoes and anti-embolism (TED) stockings; (3) retaliatory cell searches culminating in damage to his television; and (4) refusal to file his self-prepared living will in prison records. The district court dismissed multiple claims at the pleading stage and granted summary judgment on the remainder. Rolle appealed, also challenging the district judge’s refusal to recuse.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in full:

• Recusal: No abuse of discretion; spouse’s public comments do not impute bias to the judge.
• Pleading dismissals: Claims against Corizon, WDOC, and supervisory defendants properly dismissed for failure to allege an actionable policy/custom or deliberate indifference under Monell standards.
• Living-Will Claim: No cause of action under the First Amendment, Due Process, the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA), or RLUIPA; PSDA inapplicable because a prison is not a “provider of services.”
• Summary judgment: No triable fact that medical defendants were deliberately indifferent; many claims unexhausted; qualified immunity shielded correctional officer from retaliation claim.

Accordingly, the appellate court reinforced two key propositions: (i) private medical contractors are subject to Monell strictures identical to municipalities, and (ii) the PSDA does not reach correctional institutions.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
   • Core holding—no respondeat superior liability under § 1983—guided dismissal of claims against both WDOC and Corizon.
   • Court applied Monell to private contractors through Dubbs v. Head Start, 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003), requiring proof of a policy/custom or “deliberate indifference.”
2. Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013) & Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2019)
   • Provided the “pattern of similar violations” requirement for failure-to-train theories.
   • Rolle’s complaint lacked facts showing any pattern, leading to dismissal.
3. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011)
   • Cited for the necessity that policymaking officials adopt a policy with “deliberate indifference.”
4. Barnett v. Hall, Estill…, 956 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2020)
   • Applied to evaluate recusal motion, emphasizing that a spouse’s opinions are not automatically attributed to the judge.
5. Qualified-Immunity Framework: Tachias v. Sanders, 130 F.4th 836 (10th Cir. 2025); Luethje v. Kyle, 131 F.4th 1179 (10th Cir. 2025) (post-Pearson two-step test).

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Supervisory & Corporate Liability

The panel re-affirmed that:

• Only policies or customs—not isolated acts—trigger liability for municipalities or private contractors.
• A “failure-to-train” allegation must identify a persistent, similar pattern of constitutional violations, or a single-incident so obvious that liability is inevitable (narrow rarity per City of Canton).
• Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that Corizon/WDOC “failed to train” lacked the requisite factual content, dooming those claims under Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards.

3.2.2 Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs

To establish an Eighth-Amendment medical claim a prisoner must satisfy:

1. Objective prong: Serious medical need.
2. Subjective prong: Defendants’ awareness and disregard of excessive risk.

The record revealed extensive, multi-provider treatment of Rolle’s dental infection and dermatological issues. Disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not equal constitutional violation. Summary judgment was therefore proper.

3.2.3 Qualified Immunity on Retaliation Claim

Even accepting Rolle’s narrative that Officer Galvin damaged his television for filing grievances, the court required precedent that clearly established such conduct as unconstitutional in materially similar circumstances. Rolle cited none, and the panel held that routine cell searches—even those resulting in accidental property damage—are inherent to prison life and do not, by themselves, violate clearly established law.

3.2.4 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) mandates exhaustion. Many of Rolle’s allegations (forced medical encounters, stocking/ACE-wrap denial, broad retaliation theories) were unsupported by filed grievances; consequently, they were barred.

3.2.5 Patient Self-Determination Act & Living-Will Claim

The PSDA compels Medicare/Medicaid “providers of services” (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes) to furnish information about advance directives. The Tenth Circuit held that a state prison is not such a provider; therefore, Rolle’s inability to store a living will internally, while perhaps bureaucratically frustrating, does not create a PSDA or constitutional violation. This portion of the opinion is the first appellate treatment of PSDA’s scope vis-à-vis correctional facilities, and squarely limits inmate litigation premised on that statute.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Private-Contractor Exposure: By equating contractors with municipalities under Monell, the decision will make it harder for prisoners to sue medical vendors without concrete evidence of systemic wrongdoing.
• Advance-Directive Litigation: Prisons nationwide can rely on this ruling to fend off PSDA-based claims; policy revisions (e.g., offering a repository for living wills) will remain discretionary absent state statute.
• Retaliation & Property Damage: The qualified-immunity analysis suggests inmates will need precedent squarely recognizing retaliatory property damage as unconstitutional—in addition to proving motive—before such cases survive.
• Exhaustion Enforcement: Reinforces strict PLRA exhaustion; courts will likely scrutinize grievance records closely.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 1983

Civil-rights statute allowing suits against state actors who deprive constitutional rights.

Monell Liability

Framework making cities (and, by extension, private contractors performing state functions) liable only for their own official policies or customs, not for employee misdeeds.

Deliberate Indifference

A high standard requiring knowledge of risk plus disregard. Negligence or malpractice is insufficient.

Qualified Immunity

Doctrine shielding officials unless they violated clearly established law—meaning existing precedent puts the violation “beyond debate.”

PLRA Exhaustion

Prisoners must use the prison’s full grievance process before suing.

Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA)

Federal law mandating Medicare/Medicaid “providers” inform patients of their right to advance directives; it does not cover correctional institutions.

5. Conclusion

Key Takeaways:

• The Tenth Circuit solidified that private healthcare contractors are treated like municipalities under Monell; isolated mistakes or poor treatment do not equate to policy-based liability.
• Advance-directive rights under the PSDA cannot be invoked against prisons, foreclosing a nascent litigation avenue for inmates.
• Rigorous application of PLRA exhaustion and qualified immunity continues to limit prisoner civil-rights suits.
• For practitioners, the decision instructs that future § 1983 complaints against correctional healthcare providers must plead detailed, pattern-based facts and cite clearly established precedent to survive dismissal.

Rolle’s defeat may appear sweeping, yet the opinion offers valuable guidance on drafting viable claims, understanding statutory reach, and the evidentiary burdens necessary to pierce qualified immunity—guidance that will shape prisoner litigation in the Tenth Circuit and beyond.