Show summary Hide summary
The first of six civil suits alleging abuse at the Wyoming Boys’ School will proceed to trial after a federal judge rejected the facility’s bid to shield staff with qualified immunity — a decision that raises fresh questions about how the state confines and disciplines adjudicated juveniles. The ruling centers on claims that some uses of solitary confinement at the Worland facility were punitive rather than tied to safety, and it sends the initial case to a Casper courtroom this fall.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl’s order applies only to the suit brought by Blaise Chivers‑King, one of six former residents who filed claims in 2024 accusing the state-run institution of prolonged isolation, physical abuse and civil rights violations. The Wyoming Boys’ School houses delinquent males ages 12 to 21 and is operated by the Wyoming Department of Family Services.
What the court decided and why it matters
Skavdahl denied qualified immunity for key parts of Chivers‑King’s complaint, allowing several constitutional claims to go before a jury. Qualified immunity protects government employees from lawsuits unless they violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right; the judge found there is enough evidence to question whether some isolation practices at the school crossed that line.
Boxing champions ditch long runs for high-intensity training: new era in fight prep
Czech nationals among victims of Pinedale-area crash: two confirmed dead
The court flagged evidence suggesting some confinements were imposed for set durations even after staff observed the youth calming down — practices the judge said could be seen as punishment rather than necessary safety measures. For jurors, the crucial issue will be whether those periods of separation were reasonably related to managing an immediate threat or instead served a punitive purpose.
Skavdahl relied in part on appellate decisions that have previously held punitive isolation of non‑convicted juveniles unconstitutional, signaling the legal bar plaintiffs must meet to succeed.
Allegations, rulings and what will go to trial
Chivers‑King, who spent two separate placements at the school as a teenager, says he was placed in prolonged isolation — dozens of days in total across his stays — and that staff used excessive force and denied procedural protections. The judge allowed several of those claims to proceed while dismissing or narrowing others.
- Isolation claims: Portions alleging that confinement was used punitively rather than for safety will go to trial.
- Due process: A procedural due process claim against one supervisor was dismissed, but a related claim against the superintendent was allowed to proceed.
- Excessive force: Some defendant officers were cleared on force claims, while others remain named in claims that will be tried.
- Other claims: A deliberate‑indifference to medical needs claim was withdrawn by the plaintiff; a disability discrimination claim was denied by the court.
The ruling does not determine liability; it simply finds that the factual record is sufficient to send certain questions to a jury.
Trial schedule and next steps
Chivers‑King’s case is slated to begin on Nov. 9, 2026, in federal court in Casper. The court has separated the six plaintiffs’ claims into individual trials to reduce juror confusion given the complexity of events, defendants and time span involved. Subsequent trials are set for Dylan Tolar on Nov. 30, 2026, and for the plaintiff identified as D.H. on Dec. 14, 2026; dates for the remaining three — Charles “Rees” Karn, Haiden Willis and Koby Cranford — will be scheduled after the first two cases are resolved.
Case complexity and evidence
Defendants had argued each instance of isolation served a legitimate, nonpunitive purpose tied to safety and behavior management. The judge’s opinion points to records and memoranda where staff imposed fixed release dates and where notes suggest the youth had calmed — facts the judge said could allow a jury to infer punishment.
One incident cited in the ruling involved property damage and aggressive behavior, after which administrators approved a confinement period that was explicitly set to end on a specified date, despite contemporaneous observations that the resident had settled and was able to shower and eat. That contrast — the presence of set timeframes versus ongoing behavior assessments — is central to the legal dispute.
Broader implications
The litigation tests how juvenile facilities balance safety and discipline, and it could influence policy on the use of solitary confinement in state custody. Because residents at Boys’ School are adjudicated delinquent but not convicted felons, courts have treated certain punitive restraints as unlawful in prior appeals court decisions — a point the judge emphasized.
Potential outcomes range from jury awards against individual staff and the department to possible operational changes at the institution if practices are found unconstitutional. The split‑trial approach also means the school and state face repeated legal scrutiny over separate factual records rather than a single consolidated hearing.
As the November trial approaches, both sides will continue to exchange evidence and sharpen arguments about whether the confinements were medically and behaviorally justified or impermissibly punitive.
