GELIN v. John and Jane Does, 1-8, Defendants. (2025)

A state court sentenced Ashleigh Gelin to a year in county jail. At the time, Ashleigh suffered from bipolar disorder, and she was taking three medications daily to control it. But the jail cut off Ashleigh's access to her medications, and despite contrary prison policy, Ashleigh's mental illness went untreated. Ten days into her sentence, she died by suicide.

Ashleigh's parents sued, and some defendants—Baltimore County, joined by seven correctional officers—moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the motion, but only in part.

The County and the officers then filed this interlocutory appeal. They argue that they're immune from suit and that the district court went astray by holding that they weren't. In response, the Gelins attack our jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction to decide only some of the issues presented. As to those we can address, the Gelins don't state a constitutional claim against the correctional officers and the County is entitled to a common-law immunity from suit. As a result, we dismiss in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I.

Where, as here, we hear an appeal from a defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, we take all the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. Pulte Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, 909 F.3d 685, 691 (4th Cir. 2018).

A.

Ashleigh Gelin was admitted to Baltimore County Detention Center on November 4, 2013, after being sentenced to one year of imprisonment for misdemeanor theft. At intake that afternoon, a nurse noted that Ashleigh had a history of mental illness for which she'd previously been hospitalized and was addicted to opioids and benzodiazepines. The nurse also noted that Ashleigh was on medications, but didn't record which ones.

That evening, a nurse practitioner visited Ashleigh for an initial health assessment and diagnosed her with (1) “bipolar disorder and ․ evidence of depression and/or psychosis” and (2) benzodiazepine and opiate withdrawal and psychiatric disorder. J.A. 36–37 ¶¶ 34–35. The nurse practitioner placed Ashleigh on detox, prescribed her Librium (an anti-anxiety medication) and Phenergan (an anti-allergy medication), and referred her for mental health treatment. Detention Center policy required an inmate referred for such treatment to either be evaluated within seventy-two hours or “placed on special observation status.” J.A. 37 ¶ 40. But that didn't happen.

Instead, Ashleigh was evaluated by licensed counselor Kyle Shuman on November 11, nearly a week after the nurse practitioner referred her. Shuman reported that Ashleigh had suffered a seizure on November 3 (the day before entering jail) and “was taking three daily mental health medications, specifically alprazolam, seroquel and effexor, when admitted.” J.A. 38 ¶ 43. Each of these medications is commonly “prescribed to treat mental illness,” including bipolar disorder, “and sudden change in dosage” or discontinuation “can lead to suicidal ideations.” J.A. 38 ¶ 43.

Ashleigh had received none of her medications during the week she'd been in jail. Shuman noted that Ashleigh suffered from “panic attacks, intermittent tearfulness, difficulty sleeping and anxious mood,” but he didn't refer her to mental health services. J.A. 38 ¶¶ 47–48. Ashleigh would receive no treatment for her bipolar disorder while she was in jail.

The next day, November 12, Ashleigh was “jumped” by two other inmates, leading to injuries that required medical treatment. J.A. 38 ¶ 49. She wasn't separated from these inmates, “with whom she had [had] previous alter[c]ations” and who “were bullying her and calling her names.” J.A. 38 ¶ 50.

On November 14, around 3:30 p.m., Shuman again evaluated Ashleigh (at the request of jail officials) for “crying, screaming and complaining of hearing voices.” J.A. 94 (cited by J.A. 39 ¶ 51); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). Ashleigh, crying in bed, “complained of other inmates screaming her name and yelling” and complained that she had still not received any “psychotropic medications.” J.A. 38–39 ¶ 51. Shuman reported that he would follow up the next morning.

Correctional officer Michelle Rawlins recorded that Shuman “had talked to Ms. Gelin and that Ms. Gelin would be seen by mental health services the following morning.” J.A. 39 ¶ 52. A psychiatrist was scheduled to visit Ashleigh on November 18, but Ashleigh wasn't “placed on special observation status.” J.A. 39 ¶¶ 53–54.

The psychiatrist's visit would never take place. Around 6 p.m. on November 14, 2013, ten days into Ashleigh's one-year sentence, correctional officer Michael Salisbury found Ashleigh “dead in her cell, slumped down on her toilet, her neck hanging sideways with a sheet tied around her neck and tied to the vent in the ceiling” in her unit. J.A. 39 ¶ 55. Ashleigh was rushed to a hospital, but she was pronounced dead on arrival.

The inmates in Ashleigh's unit “were aware of [her] pending death and continuously screamed while banging on the cell walls in an attempt to summon help.” J.A. 40 ¶ 59. But correctional officers conducted no inmate checks or “watch tour rounds” “within the two hours prior to Ms. Gelin being discovered.” J.A. 40 ¶ 60.

The officers named as defendants here “were all present on the day Ms. Gelin committed suicide under their watch, yet not one of them conducted an inmate count at 3:15 [p.m.] or a watch tour between 3:58 [p.m. and the time] when Ms. Gelin's body was discovered.” J.A. 44 ¶ 88. None of them “responded to the screaming and yelling of other inmates attempting to get their attention during Ms. Gelin's pending death.” J.A. 44–45 ¶ 89.

B.

Ashleigh's parents sued on behalf of themselves and Ashleigh's estate. Gelin v. Baltimore County (Rule 12(c) Op.), No. ADC-16-3694, 2023 WL 2480502, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2023). The Gelins’ complaint named a wide array of defendants falling into four broad categories.

The first group was affiliated with Correct Care Solutions, the contractor that provided Ashleigh's jail with healthcare services. It included Kyle Shuman, as well as the nurse and nurse practitioner who'd treated Ashleigh. The second group, which included Rawlins and Salisbury, comprised the correctional officers who were on duty when Ashleigh died. The third group included Baltimore County itself and Deborah Richardson, the Director of the County's Department of Corrections. And finally, the complaint named eight John and Jane Does, alleged agents of the County whose acts purportedly contributed to Ashleigh's death. Only the second and third groups are parties to this appeal.¹

The Gelins pleaded ten counts. Counts I, II, and III arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and accused the individual defendants of treating Ashleigh with deliberate indifference.² Count IV was a § 1983 claim against the County and Corrections Director Richardson under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Counts V and VI pleaded violations of the Maryland Declaration of Rights against the individual defendants. The remaining counts pleaded state-law torts: negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death against the individual defendants (Counts VII to IX), and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against Baltimore County, Richardson, Correct Care, and the Does (Count X).

Baltimore County, the correctional officers, and Richardson moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted in part. Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *1. The court dismissed Count IV (the Gelins’ Monell claim) and Count V (the Gelins’ claim under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights) as insufficiently pleaded. Id. at *3, *7–8. And the district court held that because the substantive scope of Articles 16 and 25 of Maryland Declaration of Rights mirrored that of the Eighth Amendment, Count VI (the Gelins’ claim based on those provisions) rose and fell with their § 1983 claims. Id. at *4 (citing Torbit v. Balt. City Police Dep't, 231 Md.App. 573, 153 A.3d 847, 857 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017)).

On the deliberate indifference claims, the district court found that the Gelins didn't plead that the correctional officers were deliberately indifferent to Ashleigh Gelin's mental health needs. Even so, the district court observed that Ashleigh was “in objective physical danger” and that the prison guards had known it. Id. at *5. The district court thus found it plausible that the officers acted with deliberate indifference when they “failed to take reasonable measures to ensure [Ashleigh's] safety,” in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id.

The district court then considered whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from the Gelins’ § 1983 claims. The district court concluded that they weren't because “[e]xhibiting deliberate indifference to an inmate's safety” was, according to the district court, “a clearly established Eighth Amendment right.” Id. at *6.

Next, the district court considered whether the officers were entitled to Maryland common-law public official immunity as to Counts VII to IX, the Gelins’ state-law tort claims.³ The district court recognized that the doctrine applies when “(1) the representative [of the government] is acting as a public official; (2) the tortious conduct occurred while the representative was performing discretionary rather than ministerial acts; and (3) the representative acted without malice or gross negligence.” Id. at *8 (quotation omitted). It found that the correctional officers were public officials and, setting aside whether the officers’ actions were discretionary or ministerial, declined to enter judgment on the pleadings because the Gelins had sufficiently alleged gross negligence.⁴ Id. at *9.

Finally, the district court denied governmental immunity to the County on Count X. Id. at *10. The County was entitled to such an immunity only when operating in a “governmental,” rather than a “proprietary” capacity, as established by a multi-factor test from the Maryland courts. Id. (quotation omitted). The district court held that the County had failed to meet its burden of establishing governmental immunity because “the pleadings and exhibits thereto provide[d] no information about the legislative authority by which [the Detention Center] operates, nor about the particular arrangement between [the Detention Center] and Baltimore County.” Id.

This appeal followed.

C.

On appeal, the Gelins challenged the County's compliance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4. Gelin v. Baltimore County (Gelin III), 122 F.4th 531, 536 (4th Cir. 2024). We confronted that “curious problem” in Gelin III and concluded that the County's notice of appeal was premature because the district court had yet to rule on a pending issue. Id. at 537–38. Exercising our discretion, we stayed the appeal to let the district court act. Id. at 539.

The district court promptly ruled on the issue we identified. See Gelin v. Baltimore County, 2025 WL 316969, at *3. As a result, the County's notice of appeal has “become[ ] effective,” and the matter is properly before us for decision. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

II.

Because the Gelins challenge our jurisdiction, we start there.

Congress has given the courts of appeals the power to review only “final decisions” of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Usually, that means litigants must wait “until after the entire controversy has been concluded.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 326, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940). But under one notable exception—the collateral order doctrine—we treat some district-court orders as final for § 1291 purposes because they “finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself” to wait “until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

We must tread carefully. The collateral order doctrine can't and shouldn't be recklessly expanded. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006); Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009). But generally, an order denying an immunity from suit can be considered in an interlocutory posture. See Will, 546 U.S. at 350, 126 S.Ct. 952.

The County says that the collateral order doctrine supports its interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of each of its three asserted immunities. The Gelins disagree.

We find that we have jurisdiction to consider two immunities, but not the third.

A.

As we already held in Gelin III, an order denying federal qualified immunity at the pleading stage can be appealed immediately. 122 F.4th at 536 n.2, 537. That's because qualified immunity—an affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—immunizes officers from suit. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996). Thus, a district court order “rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a ‘final’ judgment subject to immediate appeal.” Id. at 307, 116 S.Ct. 834 (emphasis removed).

The Gelins try and fail to skirt this rule. They say that the district court's decision turned on issues of fact, not law, and that we therefore lack jurisdiction. That argument has weight when we review summary judgment decisions: orders that deny summary judgment purely on the sufficiency of the factual record don't permit an interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995).

But whatever its bite on summary judgment, Johnson is toothless at the pleading stage. Motions to dismiss aren't like motions for summary judgment. In the latter case, the sufficiency of the evidence is easy to disaggregate from the sufficiency of the legal theory. See id. at 318–19, 115 S.Ct. 2151. But in the former, things are different: “whether a particular complaint sufficiently alleges a clearly established violation of law cannot be decided in isolation from the facts pleaded,” making it illogical to permit interlocutory review of one question but not the other. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “Evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint is not a ‘fact-based’ question of law,” so the Iqbal Court held that it had jurisdiction to consider whether a complaint plausibly stated a case for relief in an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal. Id. at 674–75, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

The Gelins give us no reason to distinguish Iqbal. True, that case heard an appeal from the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and here we're faced with an appeal from the denial of a Rule 12(c) motion. But that difference changes nothing; in this posture, the two standards are identical. Pulte Home Corp., 909 F.3d at 691.

Like a motion to dismiss, and unlike a motion for summary judgment, a motion for judgment on the pleadings involves no evidentiary record, concerns no matters especially “within a district court's ken,” and fits neatly “within an appellate court's core competency.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 674, 129 S.Ct. 1937. And here, as in Iqbal, the district court's order “turned on an issue of law and rejected the defense of qualified immunity.” Id. at 672, 129 S.Ct. 1937. So we can consider the qualified immunity appeal.

B.

A different analysis applies to the County's next two claimed immunities. Both those doctrines—public official immunity and governmental immunity—provide state-law defenses to state-law claims. The Supreme Court's interpretation of federal qualified immunity doesn't apply. Instead, we must ask (as the Supreme Court did for qualified immunity) whether the County's claimed immunities represent “entitlement[s] not to stand trial under certain circumstances.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). If that's the case, then interlocutory appeal is allowed.

Our precedents have consistently held that only “certain kinds of immunity fall within the collateral order doctrine.” Davis v. City of Greensboro, 770 F.3d 278, 281 (4th Cir. 2014). As we've explained, “the right to an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a claim of ․ immunity under state law can only exist where the state has extended an underlying substantive right to be free from the burdens of litigation.” Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's County, 309 F.3d 224, 232 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1106–07 (3d Cir. 1990)). To tell that kind of immunity apart from “an immunity from liability only,” id. at 231, we “look to state substantive law.” Nero v. Mosby, 890 F.3d 106, 121 (4th Cir. 2018).

We've undertaken this analysis before. In Gray-Hopkins, we read Maryland law to hold that both governmental immunity and public official immunity conferred immunity from suit. 309 F.3d at 231–33. But we must apply Maryland law as it stands now, not as it stood when Gray-Hopkins was decided. Cf. Vandenbark v. Owens-Ill. Glass Co., 311 U.S. 538, 542–43, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 L.Ed. 327 (1941). Maryland's court of last resort has the last word on the meaning of Maryland law, so if rulings of that court persuade us that Maryland law has changed, our caselaw must change with it. United States v. Old Dominion Boat Club, 630 F.3d 1039, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Robinson v. Jiffy Exec. Limousine Co., 4 F.3d 237, 240 (3d Cir. 1993).

1.

We start with the easier issue: governmental immunity. Gray-Hopkins found that the common-law governmental immunity that applies to claims against Maryland counties and municipalities “is a more limited form of the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the State.” 309 F.3d at 232. That view has been buttressed by subsequent Maryland caselaw. See, e.g., Mayor of Baltimore v. Whalen, 395 Md. 154, 909 A.2d 683, 688–89 (2006).

Now, just as when Gray-Hopkins was decided, state sovereign immunity protects a sovereign from suit, not liability. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144–45, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). When a court denies that immunity, the collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal. Id. at 141, 113 S.Ct. 684. So we reaffirm the Gray-Hopkins court's conclusion that Maryland municipalities may immediately appeal a district court's denial of Maryland governmental immunity. 309 F.3d at 232.

2.

Next, the tougher issue: common-law public official immunity. This Maryland doctrine protects (1) public officials who (2) act negligently and (3) without malice (4) while performing discretionary (that is, non-ministerial) duties. Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 118 A.3d 829, 848 (2015); D'Aoust v. Diamond, 424 Md. 549, 36 A.3d 941, 962 (2012).

Does this doctrine confer immunity from suit? The question is complex, and changes in Maryland law require us to analyze it from first principles. After doing so, we conclude that Maryland common-law public official immunity provides its bearer no relief from the burdens of litigation. Because Maryland public official immunity represents “an immunity from liability only,” Gray-Hopkins, 309 F.3d at 231, an order withholding it falls outside the collateral order doctrine and isn't a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

a.

We first explain why we can't rest on Gray-Hopkins. That case predicted that Maryland courts would treat public official immunity like the federal courts treat qualified immunity under § 1983. 309 F.3d at 232–33. But its prediction hasn't aged well. Subsequent Maryland caselaw rejects Gray-Hopkins’s logic, so we must start from scratch.

Our discussion of public official immunity in Gray-Hopkins relied on two Maryland cases: Baltimore Police Department v. Cherkes, 140 Md.App. 282, 780 A.2d 410 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001), and Town of Port Deposit v. Petetit, 113 Md.App. 401, 688 A.2d 54 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997). In Cherkes and Petetit, we recounted, Maryland's intermediate appellate court had “permitted appeals under the collateral order doctrine from denials of summary judgment with respect to claims of common law public official immunity, thus implying that this immunity is an immunity from suit.” Gray-Hopkins, 309 F.3d at 232. From there, we predicted that Maryland's court of last resort would, “if required to determine th[e] issue,” “find that the common law of [public] official immunity was founded in part on the same concerns” that animate federal qualified immunity. Id. at 232–33. Maryland courts would thus conclude, we reasoned, that public official immunity (like federal qualified immunity) counted as an immunity from suit. Id.

But Maryland rejected Gray-Hopkins’s authorities the very next year. In Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Department, Maryland's high court overruled precedent relying on federal qualified immunity cases and declared that “interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of ․ public official immunity ․ are not appealable under the Maryland collateral order doctrine.” 376 Md. 53, 827 A.2d 115, 122 (2003). In other words, the core premise of Maryland law that we relied on in Gray-Hopkins turned out to be wrong. Dawkins fatally undermines Gray-Hopkins’s reasoning, so we can't use that reasoning to resolve this case.

The other cases that the parties rest on likewise don't persuade. The Gelins argue, citing Dawkins, that we should reconcile our interlocutory-appeal doctrine with Maryland's. But in Nero, we weren't bothered by the fact that “the federal collateral order doctrine” demanded a different result from its Maryland equivalent. 890 F.3d at 122. We stressed instead that we “look to state law only to determine whether the claimed immunity is an immunity from suit.” Id. Dawkins didn't bind us then, so it can't bind us now.

The County, for its part, cites two Maryland cases that state in passing that public official immunity is an immunity from suit, not liability. Appellants’ Br. at 19 n.1 (citing Livesay v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. 1, 862 A.2d 33, 41 (2004); Thomas v. City of Annapolis, 113 Md.App. 440, 688 A.2d 448, 458 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)).

The County is cherry-picking. Some Maryland decisions call public official immunity an “immun[ity] from liability.” James v. Prince George's County, 288 Md. 315, 418 A.2d 1173, 1177–78 (1980). Others call it an “immunity from judgment,” Houghton v. Forrest, 412 Md. 578, 989 A.2d 223, 227 (2010), or a “qualified immunity,” Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 785 A.2d 726, 734 (2001). Maryland cases use varied, inconsistent terms—an unsurprising fact, since Maryland courts have no reason to mind a distinction that matters only in federal appeals.

In short, the language that the County collects doesn't answer the critical question: Does common-law public official immunity shield its beneficiary from suit?

b.

We therefore write on a clean slate. And minding our obligation not to sanction interlocutory appeals lightly, we find that Maryland public official immunity confers no “right to be free from litigation.” Nero, 890 F.3d at 121.

i.

Nero reveals one way to proceed. There, we determined that Maryland state-law prosecutorial immunity conferred a right to be free from suit. 890 F.3d at 121. We were persuaded by the fact that Maryland courts “adopted” the doctrine from “the U.S. Supreme Court[ ]” “without qualification.” Id. at 121–22 (discussing Gill v. Ripley, 352 Md. 754, 724 A.2d 88 (1999)). Because the federal cases that Maryland courts cited had deemed prosecutorial immunity “a complete protection from suit,” we held that this federal feature was part of Maryland law, too. Id. at 121–22 (cleaned up).

Nero’s conclusion found more support in a Maryland statute that immunized State's Attorneys “from suit in courts of the State and from liability in tort.” Id. at 124 (quoting Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-522(b)) (emphasis omitted). Unsurprisingly, we held that “the statute's mention of both immunity from suit and immunity from liability” gave State's Attorneys both protections. Id. Maryland law therefore allowed us to consider its state-law prosecutorial immunity on an interlocutory basis.

But Nero’s logic proves unhelpful here. For starters, the relevant section of the Maryland Code doesn't mention immunity from suit. The correctional officers before us are county officers, and they're subject to a different immunity statute from the one that we applied to the state prosecutors in Nero. The statute here declares that officers “of a municipal corporation ․ shall be immune ․ from any civil liability.”⁵ Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-507(a)(1) (emphasis added).

What's more, unlike the prosecutorial immunity in Nero, Maryland public official immunity doesn't track Supreme Court caselaw. Clea v. Mayor of Baltimore makes that much clear. 312 Md. 662, 541 A.2d 1303 (1988).

In Clea, a defendant police officer sought immunity from constitutional torts. He urged the Maryland Court of Appeals to extend public official immunity to match Supreme Court caselaw. Id. at 1312.

But the Clea court declined. It traced public official immunity back through decades of cases, rejected any analogy to the Supreme Court's qualified immunity decisions, and concluded that “an official who violates an individual's rights under the Maryland Constitution is not entitled to any immunity” at all. Id. at 1314.

Clea confirms that public official immunity has no genetic link to a federal immunity from suit. Nero’s reasoning leads to a dead end.

ii.

We try out doctrinal history next. Public official immunity “evolved” from a “no-duty rule” that defeats liability in tort. Williams v. Mayor of Baltimore, 359 Md. 101, 753 A.2d 41, 59–60 (2000). The earliest Maryland cases that find public officers “immune from liability,” State ex rel. Clark v. Ferling, 220 Md. 109, 151 A.2d 137, 140 (1959), rest on a holding that a plaintiff who alleged exclusively discretionary acts by a sheriff was owed no special duty and “[did] not set out a sufficient cause of action,” State ex rel. Cocking v. Wade, 87 Md. 529, 40 A. 104, 107 (1898). Those precedents suggest that public official immunity might really be a defense.

But Clark and Cocking don't get us far. Modern decisions reveal that Maryland common law has evolved. The state now recognizes an important “distinction between common law public official immunity and the public duty doctrine.” Cooper, 118 A.3d at 852. The latter rule, grounded in cases like Cocking, holds that “a duty to the public as a whole” cannot be enforced in tort, defeating “the first element of ․ negligence.” Id. at 849 (cleaned up). In other words, the public duty doctrine is “a defense to liability.” Id. at 852 (quoting W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B., 234 W.Va. 492, 766 S.E.2d 751, 776–77 (2014)).

Public official immunity, on the other hand, counts as a “qualified immunity,” not a no-duty rule.⁶ Id. (quotation omitted). So public official immunity's doctrinal origins don't move the needle.

iii.

We find greater guidance when we consider public official immunity's emphasis on the defendant's mental state.

Maryland courts have long held that public official immunity doesn't protect officers who act with malice. Cooper, 118 A.3d at 853. And an immunity that turns on the defendant's state of mind—a quintessentially factual issue that usually requires discovery—can hardly be said to shield that defendant from “the burdens of litigation.” Nero, 890 F.3d at 121.

Supreme Court caselaw supports this conclusion. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the canonical qualified immunity decision, dispensed with “questions of subjective intent” and “bare allegations of malice” specifically to avoid “broad-ranging discovery” and depositions that “can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.” 457 U.S. 800, 816–17, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). And it was “Harlow” that “refashioned the qualified immunity doctrine” and “recognized an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806. Without the objective test that Harlow adopted, it's hard to see how qualified immunity (or, for that matter, Maryland public official immunity) could avert the burdens that Harlow eliminated.

c.

In this case, the other evidence is inconclusive, so the state of mind element makes all the difference. Having surveyed Maryland's substantive law, we find that Maryland common-law public official immunity, as codified at section 5-507 of the Maryland Code's Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, confers immunity from liability, not suit. And we conclude that an interlocutory order denying such an immunity can be reviewed only on direct appeal.

We thus dismiss this appeal to the extent that it challenges the district court's denial of Maryland common law public official immunity.

III.

Since we have jurisdiction to review the district court's rulings on qualified and governmental immunity, we address those rulings and reverse both.

A.

We review a district court's grant or denial of judgment on the pleadings de novo, using the same standard that we would apply to the disposition of a motion to dismiss. Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A., 112 F.4th 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2024). We therefore take the Gelins’ allegations as true and ask whether those facts create “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Because the Gelins were the non-moving party in the district court, we draw all reasonable factual inferences in their favor. Williamson v. Prime Sports Mktg., LLC, 101 F.4th 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2024).

B.

The correctional officers assert qualified immunity from the Gelins’ § 1983 claims. “We review the district court's refusal to dismiss for qualified immunity de novo, bearing in mind that [d]efendants carry the burden to demonstrate that immunity.” Thorpe v. Clarke, 37 F.4th 926, 933 (4th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). At the pleading stage, we ask (1) whether the complaint alleges a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established when the defendant acted. Id. We can start with either question. See Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023). If the answer to either is “no,” qualified immunity bars the claim.

1.

At the outset, we must reverse because the Gelins have forfeited clear establishment. When they defend the district court's ruling, they remark only that the district court found their § 1983 claims “ ‘plausible’ and ‘sufficient.’ ” Appellees’ Br. at 35. They don't define the Eighth Amendment right that they assert, and they cite no caselaw that established it at the time of Ashleigh Gelin's death. Indeed, the Gelins’ brief in the district court mentions the rule but nowhere applies it. See Mem. in Opp'n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 15–18, Gelin v. Baltimore County, No. ADC-16-3694 (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2023), ECF No. 145-1.

That forfeiture compels us to find qualified immunity. See Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 229 n.11 (4th Cir. 2022).

2.

Forfeiture aside, the Gelins fail to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the Baltimore County correctional officers. The district court largely agreed: it ruled that “any liability related to Ms. Gelin's mental health treatment (or lack thereof) lies with [Correct Care] and its employees, who have been dismissed from this action.” Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *5. It therefore entered judgment for the officers on any claims for “deliberate indifference to Ms. Gelin's mental health treatment.” Id.

But the district court went on. It held that Ashleigh “was in objective physical danger in the days leading up to her death,” that she was “emotionally abused” by other inmates, and that the correctional officers “subjectively understood” that fact. Id. For those reasons, the district court concluded that the officers displayed deliberate indifference “to Ms. Gelin's safety” because the officers “did not separate Ms. Gelin from her attackers,” didn't “properly conduct watch tours and inmate checks within her unit,” and “ignored other inmates ‘banging on the cell walls in an attempt to summon help.’ ” Id. (quoting J.A. 40 ¶ 59).

We have long held, as the district court noted, that the Eighth Amendment “protects a convicted inmate from physical harm at the hands of fellow inmates” when that harm results from the deliberate indifference of correctional officials. Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1987); accord Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). To act with deliberate indifference, “correction officers must both be aware of facts from which [they could infer] that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and actually draw the inference.” Thorpe, 37 F.4th at 934 (quotation omitted).

The Gelins’ complaint makes out no such claim. It contains no facts from which we can infer that County officials knew Ashleigh was at risk and disregarded that fact. To begin, the Gelins don't plead (as the district court stated) that the Detention Center guards “ignored” inmates calling for help. Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *5. They allege that inmates tried to summon help, but no one came. J.A. 40 ¶ 59. Maybe the officers heard their cries; maybe not. The complaint says nothing to permit an inference either way.

What's more, the Gelins don't plead that the officers knew the psychological toll inflicted by Ashleigh's assault. They plead that Ashleigh “was seen for medical treatment after an altercation where she was jumped by two other inmates,” and that she complained during a mental health evaluation that “other inmates” had been “screaming her name.” J.A. 38–39 ¶¶ 49–51. And they plead that correctional officer Michelle Rawlins noted Ashleigh's visit in her “Shift Log Report.” J.A. 39 ¶ 52.

To be sure, we can infer that the officers knew about the assault itself, and we can infer that the officers knew that Ashleigh had been “crying, screaming, and complaining of hearing voices.” J.A. 160. Ashleigh's evaluation was “per custody request,” J.A. 94, and it's fair to assume that “custody” refers to the jail's correctional officers. But we can't infer that the officers knew that Ashleigh's symptoms suggested a risk of suicide.

Nor can we impose liability because the officers didn't remove Ashleigh from her attackers. Since the officers knew Ashleigh had been attacked, it's reasonable to infer that they knew Ashleigh was at risk of being targeted again. But we can't infer without more allegations that the officers knew, from the fact of the attack, that Ashleigh was at risk of suicide.

It's not impossible that the officers learned that Ashleigh Gelin was a danger to herself. But only speculation leads to that conclusion. There can't be liability unless the officers knew of the risk that came to pass. We hold that the Gelins don't state an Eighth Amendment claim.⁷

C.

Finally, we turn to governmental immunity. The County argues that, under this state-law doctrine, it's immune from liability for its operation of a jail. We agree.

Maryland common law holds that “local governments enjoy[ ] immunity in certain types of tort actions based on activity categorized as ‘governmental,’ ” rather than private or proprietary. Rios v. Montgomery County, 386 Md. 104, 872 A.2d 1, 12 (2005) (quoting Housing Auth. v. Bennett, 359 Md. 356, 754 A.2d 367, 368 (2000)). Recognizing that this distinction can be tough to draw, and acknowledging that “there is no universally accepted or all-inclusive test” to make the call, Maryland courts have asked whether an activity (1) “is sanctioned by legislative authority,” (2) “is solely for the public benefit, with no profit or emolument inuring to the municipality,” (3) “tends to benefit the public health and promote the welfare of the whole public,” and (4) “has ․ no element of private interest.” Id. at 15 (quotation omitted).

No decision of Maryland's high court answers whether the operation of a prison is a governmental rather than proprietary act. But Maryland's intermediate court of appeals has discussed the question in some detail, though only in an unpublished opinion.⁸ Jones v. Montgomery County, No. 1910, 2016 WL 1321396, at *4–6 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 5, 2016). It was obvious to the Jones court, after analyzing “the weight of authority,” that “whether a county operates a facility or uses a contractor, the operation of a detention facility remains a governmental function.” Id. at *6.

When we apply a state's law, “we defer to a decision of the state's intermediate appellate court to a lesser degree than we do to a decision of the state's highest court.” Assicurazioni Generali, S.p.A. v. Neil, 160 F.3d 997, 1002 (4th Cir. 1998). “Nevertheless, we do defer,” and we require “persuasive data” to depart from “a decision of a state intermediate appellate court that is directly on point.” Id. The Gelins have given us none.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found it easy to conclude that Maryland counties act as governments, not private persons, when they operate a jail. We see no reason not to defer to that considered judgment. Indeed, we can imagine no set of facts under which a prison owned and operated by the public doesn't fulfill a governmental function.

We reverse the district court's conclusion to the contrary.

IV.

The healthcare providers who the Gelins allege neglected Ashleigh are not before us. The Gelins’ complaint states no federal constitutional claim against the correctional officer defendants, who aren't pleaded to have known that Ashleigh was at risk of suicide. And, under Maryland common law, Baltimore County itself has immunity for running a detention center—a governmental function if there ever were one. We therefore reverse the district court's decision in part and direct it to enter judgment for the defendants on Counts I, II, III, VI, and X of the Gelins’ complaint.⁹

We have no jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine over orders that deny Maryland officers common-law public official immunity. We therefore dismiss the appeal with respect to Counts VII, VIII, and IX of the complaint.

Because the Gelins’ federal claims fail and the parties lack complete diversity, see J.A. 30–35 ¶¶ 8–26, the district court may choose whether to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims left in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639–40, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009). On remand, the district court should decide in the first instance whether to do so. See Henderson v. Harmon, 102 F.4th 242, 251 (4th Cir. 2024).

DISMISSED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

FOOTNOTES

1.   Neither Correct Care nor its employees remain as parties. The district court dismissed them because the Gelins hadn't served them timely. See Gelin v. Baltimore County, No. GLR-16-3694, 2018 WL 11386793 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2018); id., ADC-16-3694, 2023 WL 1863504 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2023). The timely-service issue formed the subject of the Gelins’ first two interlocutory appeals. See generally Gelin v. Shuman (Gelin I), 834 F. App'x 41 (4th Cir. 2021); Gelin v. Shuman (Gelin II), 35 F.4th 212 (4th Cir. 2022).

2.   Counts I, II, and III, on their face, pleaded Fourteenth Amendment due process theories. The district court construed all three counts as invoking Ashleigh's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *3; see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962) (incorporating this right against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment).

3.   At this point, Richardson fell out of the case. The district court had held that the Gelins hadn't adequately pleaded that Richardson was liable as a supervisor, so it entered judgment in her favor on Counts I, II, III, and VI. Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *6–7. And the court concluded that, unlike the officers, Richardson was entitled to public official immunity from Counts VII, VIII, IX, and X. Id. at *9. Since the court had dismissed Counts IV and V, id. at *3, *8, no claims against Richardson remained.All the same, Richardson appealed. Notice of Appeal at 1, Gelin v. Baltimore County, No. ADC-16-3694 (D. Md. May 15, 2023), ECF No. 161. But because Richardson wasn't aggrieved by the district court's judgment, she isn't a proper party to the appeal, and we dismiss this matter so far as it concerns her. See Mathias v. WorldCom Techs., Inc., 535 U.S. 682, 684, 122 S.Ct. 1780, 152 L.Ed.2d 911 (2002) (per curiam); Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980).

4.   In a later ruling, the district court decided that the Gelins adequately pleaded liability for ministerial acts, so it rejected the correctional officers’ bid for public official immunity. Gelin v. Baltimore County, No. ADC-16-3694, 2025 WL 316969, at *5 (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2025).

5.   The statute was enacted to protect common-law public official immunity from judicial abrogation. Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 660 A.2d 447, 470 n.23 (1995). It neither “extend[s]” nor “limit[s]” “the scope of the common law.” Livesay, 862 A.2d at 39. So our analysis must go beyond the statute.

6.   The portion of the West Virginia case quoted in Cooper calls that state's “qualified immunity” an “immunity from suit.” 118 A.3d at 852 (quoting A.B., 766 S.E.2d at 777). But Cooper only called A.B. “instructive”; it didn't state that A.B.’s gloss on West Virginia law applied in Maryland in all respects. Id. And as we've noted, Maryland cases have referred to public official immunity in many ways. We decline to give A.B.’s mention of “immunity from suit” dispositive weight.

7.   We also question the district court's analysis of qualified immunity's second prong. The district court denied the correctional officers qualified immunity because, “[e]xhibiting deliberate indifference to an inmate's safety is ․ a clearly established Eighth Amendment right.” Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *6.But that defines the right much too generally. The district court should instead have asked whether clearly established law put the officers on notice that their conduct was unconstitutional. See King v. Riley, 76 F.4th 259, 266 n.8 (4th Cir. 2023); City of Escondido v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 43, 139 S.Ct. 500, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019).

8.   Federal, not state, law determines the weight that we give to state court decisions, and federal law instructs us “to ascertain from all the available data”—including the “considered judgment” of “an intermediate appellate state court”—“what the state law is.” West v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 237, 61 S.Ct. 179, 85 L.Ed. 139 (1940). For that reason, it doesn't matter that Maryland courts may not cite unpublished decisions like Jones “as precedent within the rule of stare decisis or ․ as persuasive authority.” Md. R. 1-104(a)(2)(A).

9.   The district court held that Count VI, the Gelins’ claim under Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, rose and fell together with the Gelins’ Eighth Amendment claim. Rule 12(c) Op., 2023 WL 2480502, at *4. We have pendent jurisdiction over that claim, which “is based on the same facts” and “raise[s] identical issues” as the Gelins’ Eighth Amendment claim. Nero, 890 F.3d at 123. And we find it unavailing for the reasons stated in Part III.B.2.

DIAZ, Chief Judge:

Dismissed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Chief Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Judge Quattlebaum joined.