No. 25-1091October Term 2025Petition PendingUpdated Sep 1, 2026
Davie County, North Carolina v. Juiliana Swink, Administratrix of the Estate of David Ray Gunter
Davie County, North Carolina, et al., Petitioners v. Juiliana Swink, Administratrix of the Estate of David Ray Gunter, et al.
Davie and Stokes Counties ask the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that may allow the counties to be held liable under Section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by a private health-care provider serving people in their jails.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Next
- Awaiting an order on the petitionNo decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Davie and Stokes Counties ask the Supreme Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that may allow the counties to be held liable under Section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by a private health-care provider serving people in their jails. The case concerns when a local government is responsible for the actions and decisions of a contractor providing jail medical care.
Question presented
1. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell, can a governmental entity be held liable, either under the doctrine of respondeat superior or the “non-delegable duty” doctrine, for the constitutional torts of a healthcare provider hired by the governmental entity? 2. Given the policymaker framework of the Supreme Court as articulated in cases such as Pembaur, Praprotnik, and Jett, does the hiring by a governmental entity of a healthcare provider to provide healthcare services at a jail automatically convert the healthcare provider into a governmental policymaker for purposes of Section 1983 liability?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit / Petition pending
- Area
Petition for review pending
Briefing
What it's about
Davie County asks whether a county can be responsible under Section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by a health care provider it hired for jail medical services. It also asks whether hiring that provider automatically makes the provider a county policymaker.
Argument
The petition for certiorari (the Court's decision whether to hear a case) has been filed, and oral argument has not been scheduled.
Impact
The case could affect when counties face federal civil-rights claims over medical care in jails. For example, it could shape whether a person harmed by a jail contractor's care can seek damages from the county itself.
What's next
The Court may take another scheduling step or decide whether to hear the case. No oral argument date or decision window is available yet.
What is at stake in Davie County v. Swink?
The case asks when a county may be sued for alleged constitutional violations by a health care provider hired to serve a jail.
Who could be affected by this case?
Counties, jail health care providers, and people receiving medical care in jails could be affected by the Court's decision whether to hear the case.
What happens next in Davie County v. Swink?
The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant certiorari, meaning agree to hear the case. No argument date has been scheduled.
Documents
Activity
Docket activity2
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 1, 2026 | Generated
Brief added: Petition
Mar 13, 2026 | Court records
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Sep 1, 2026
- Method
- Methodology