Citing references

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) for the proposition that there is “no identified controlling authority or a robust consensus or persuasive authority clearly establishing a right to be free from mold.” ECF No. 33 at 4.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 , 1013- 14 (8th Cir. 2020).1 This Court ordered additional briefing on county liability in light of that opinion. (Doc. No. 115). Defendants have submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020). In conducting our review, we view the record and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). In considering whether a right is clearly established, courts do not look at precedent “at a high level of generality.” Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). In considering whether a right is clearly established, courts do not look at precedent “at a high level of generality.” Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020)). The Eighth Circuit has stated: Clearly established law is not defined “at a high level of generality”; instead “we look for a controlling case or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (plaintiff must cite to a “controlling case or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority” because “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). In considering whether a right is clearly established, courts do not look at precedent “at a high level of generality.” Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). In considering whether a right is clearly established, courts do not look at precedent “at a high level of generality.” Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). In considering whether a right is clearly established, courts do not look at precedent “at a high level of generality.” Id.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1010-13 (8th Cir. 2020) (concluding county jail employees were entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claim alleging Eighth Amendment violation); Doe v.

F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020) (examining when a right is clearly established for qualified immunity analysis).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020). There is no authority that clearly defines that threshold, however. See id. at 1013 (granting qualified immunity on a mold claim). Nonetheless, a jury is not needed to determine that Mr.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 , 741 (2011)).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dillard v. O’Kelley, 961 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th □ Cir. 2020) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dillard v. O’Kelley, 961 F.3d 1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 2020). A right is clearly established if it is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Reichle v.

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir. 2020); Hall, 77 F.4th at 1178 .

F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir. 2020).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that exposure to the “presence of mold or another environmental allergen” may give rise to unsanitary prison conditions that violate an inmate’s rights).

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2020), my research fails to uncover any “controlling Eighth Circuit cases addressing prison conditions and issues related to mold or other allergens . . . .

Andrews, 972 F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). A court evaluates whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. See Estate of Nash v. Folson, 92 F.4th 746, 759 (8th Cir. 2024). i.