Walton v Nehls, 2025 WL 1275395 (7th Cir. 2025)
Some experts claim sexual assault in prison — particularly when committed by a corrections official — is one of the most underreported crimes. Inmates are a little more likely to report sexual assault when the perpetrator is a fellow inmate. When a prison official sexually assaults an inmate, though, courts have little difficulty in finding liability under the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
But what if the inmate enjoyed the sex, and wanted more of it? That’s the question David Walton, a Wisconsin prisoner, put before the Court of Appeals. Walton sued Ashley Nehls, a prison nurse, claiming she violated his Eighth Amendment rights by having sexual relations with him over the course of several months. Walton testified the relationship was consensual and consisted of him touching her breasts and her touching his penis.
Once prison officials learned of the relationship, Nehls was immediately transferred to another facility. Only then did Walton sue, alleging his Eighth Amendment rights had been violated. Walton said he “was physically attracted to Nehls and that he enjoyed it,” describing the relationship as “kind of like two high school kids making out.” Though Nehls gave Walton candy, pain pills, junk food and a mobile phone, he claimed Nehls “never asked for anything in return, and he never gave her anything in return.”
The district court granted summary judgment for Nehls, asserting Walton’s uncontroverted testimony that he welcomed the sexual relationship meant that — as a matter of law — the conduct did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Walton appealed, asking the higher court to rule that any sexual activity between a prisoner and a prison official is presumptively nonconsensual and violates the Eighth Amendment unless authorities can prove an absence of coercion. To date, at least two circuit courts of appeal have held that inmate/official sexual conduct is presumptively nonconsensual, while two others to consider the question have not so held.
The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment for Nehls. The court noted the power dynamics between prisoners and prison officials and the evolving standards of decency, observing that all 50 states have criminalized sexual conduct between prison officials and prisoners. But even if the court applied the presumption of nonconsent, Walton’s testimony clearly established there was no coercion by Nehls.
The conduct in this case isn’t the sort that I’d recommend repeating, even though the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter. It isn’t worth taking the chance that the Supreme Court case to finally put the issue to bed turns out to be “Insert Your Name Here” v. Jane Doe.
