Stanfill #879012 v. Morford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH STANFILL #879012,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:24-cv-148
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
C/O ROGER MORFORD,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
39) and Defendant’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 40). Under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and
Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . 	has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s
recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT,
M ILLER , & M ARCUS , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997).
Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Case 1:24-cv-00148-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1
of 3

2
Report and Recommendation itself; and Defendant’s objections. After its review, the Court finds
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22)
in part because Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims.1 (ECF No. 39, PageID.165). Defendant asserts that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly
applied Sixth Circuit caselaw when analyzing qualified immunity. (ECF No. 40, PageID.169)
More specifically, Defendant asserts that Sixth Circuit caselaw does not clearly establish that
sexual assault allegations of the nature alleged by Plaintiff are Eighth Amendment violations. (Id.).
The Court disagrees.
The Sixth Circuit has previously recognized that sexual abuse of prisoners can be a clearly
established Eighth Amendment violation, “even in the absence of physical touching by a guard.”
Rafferty v. Trumbull County, 915 F.3d 1087, 1097 (6th Cir. 2019). It is true that “ ‘isolated, brief,
and not severe’ instances of sexual harassment do not give rise to Eighth Amendment violations.”
Id. at 1095-96. But in Rafferty, the court denied qualified immunity to a prison guard who, on
multiple occasions, forced the inmate to expose her breasts and masturbate in the guards’ presence.
Id. at 1092. Here, the facts are similar. In both cases, the prison guard forced an inmate to expose
themselves in the guard’s presence. Although the alleged facts here do not describe multiple
instances of sexual harassment, as described in Rafferty, the facts go beyond Rafferty in that
Plaintiff, under threat of being shipped “up north” away from family, was forced to touch the
officer’s genitalia and perform a sexual act. As the Magistrate Judge properly concluded, after
Rafferty, “it would be clear to a reasonable officer” that forcing an inmate to expose themselves
1 The Magistrate Judge also recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim. Neither
party has objected to this. (ECF No. 39, PageID.160-61).
Case 1:24-cv-00148-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2
of 3

3
and perform a sexual act under threat of being sent away from family was unlawful, regardless of
the number of times it happened. Rafferty, 915 F.3d at 1097. As such, the Magistrate Judge
properly concluded that the alleged Eighth Amendment violation is clearly established, and
Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.2
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 39) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Dated: 	November 20, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on damage claims, but acknowledges
binding authority supporting the Magistrate Judge’s decision. (ECF No. 40, PageID.169-70). But
that is not this Court’s practice. This Court previously explained that:
Case 1:24-cv-00148-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 3
of 3