Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of...

103
Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections

Transcript of Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of...

Page 1: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Part II

Constitutional Law of Corrections

Page 2: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Introduction: This chapter examines the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” with respect to the conditions under which inmates are held

Page 3: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Chapter Outline

Conditions in Prison Opening the Gates Crowding in Prisons and Jails Effect of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act Bell v. Wolfish Rhodes v. Chapman

Page 4: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Chapter Outline: cont’d

Whitley v. Albers Wilson v. Seiter Hudson v. McMillian Farmer v. Brennan Helling v. McKinney Qualified Immunity

Page 5: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Conditions in Prison Historically, the courts had a

“hands-off” attitude towards prisons Gave no constitutional guidelines for

the management of prisons Constitution was not seen as providing

the courts the keys to unlock the doors and to look into prison conditions

This view changed beginning in the 1960s

Page 6: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates Wright v. McMann (1967) – Inmate

in Clinton State Prison in New York filed suit, without assistance of counsel, under Section 1983, claiming prison conditions in solitary confinement were deplorable Said he was in this cell for 33 days,

beginning in February 1965, and another 21 days in 1966

Page 7: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates: cont’d A few of the claims

Cell was dirty, with no means to clean Toilet and sink encrusted with slime and

human excrement Left nude for several days, and later

given only a pair of underwear

Page 8: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates: cont’d No hygiene items Windows in his cell were left open,

causing exposure to the cold winter air during subfreezing temperatures

Had to sleep on the cold concrete floor without bedding

Page 9: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates: cont’d Appeals court in Wright gave brief

overview of the history of the Eighth Amendment, referencing the Supreme Court’s holding in Weems (1910)

“[The Constitution]. . . may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice”

The concept of “cruel and unusual punishment” is found in an ever-changing state of public opinion – the views of American society

Page 10: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates: cont’d In Wright, the appeals court said the

alleged conditions if established would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment

“The Eighth Amendment forbids treatment so foul, so inhuman, and so violative of basic concepts of decency”

Page 11: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Opening the Gates: cont’d

The appeals court in Wright returned the case to the trial court for a hearing on the truthfulness of the charges

If proved, Wright would be entitled to relief under Section 1983

A judge concurring in this holding, warned that this would open the courts to a flood of complaints under Section 1983

Page 12: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails

Many prisons are crowded beyond their desirable capacity Such crowding can lead to other

problems - budgetary, program dilution, tensions within prison

Page 13: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d Term “overcrowding” seen as

inappropriate – as making a judgment on what level of prison population is bad Prisons and jails can be effectively run at a

population above capacity – adequate funding and resources are two factors that contribute to this

Better way to describe, absent a population that has reached a truly unmanageable level, is “crowding”

Page 14: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

Crowding in prisons has led to many lawsuits, most under § 1983 Many suits have led to court orders or

consent decrees requiring corrective actions

At least 40 states have been under such orders or decrees

Page 15: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

Consent decrees are agreements by the parties and approved by the court that certain actions will occur to improve conditions

Some defendant–administrators have signed such agreements because they agreed with the provisions and wanted to see the changes

Page 16: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

Consent decrees also have significant drawbacks:

The duration of the consent decree – can be an albatross passed from one administrator to the next

The requirement for adherence to the agreement regardless of subsequent occurrences – failure to adhere could place prison officials in contempt

Page 17: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d Interesting question – what right does an

administrator have to sign an agreement that requires the government to spend large sums of taxpayer money for programs or changes he feels are desirable

What right exists to bind future legislators or governors to that course of expensive changes

Short answer – no such right or authority - the power to raise money for the government and to decide where it is spent is with the legislative branch

Page 18: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

Some court decisions involving conditions of prisons or jails led to court-appointed masters to assist the court in the administration of the granted relief

Page 19: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

The appointed masters were to be assistants to the judges

However, provided wide authority by appointing judges, masters, at times, became involved in day-to-day prison management or were authorized to look over the shoulders of administrators in many different aspects of their job

Page 20: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Crowding in Prisons and Jails: cont’d

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides prison officials with some relief regarding consent decrees and masters

Page 21: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)

While does not change inmate’s substantive rights, does establish guidelines (such as requiring “exhaustion”)

The PLRA reflects congressional intent to limit judicial management of prisons

Page 22: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

Consent decrees – PLRA defines as relief entered by the court that is based in whole or in part upon the consent or acquiescence of the parties; does not include private settlements Relief – refers to all relief that may be

granted or approved by the federal court and includes consent decrees

Page 23: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

Prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions may be granted or approved by the federal court only upon: Finding that the relief is narrowly

drawn Extends no further than necessary to

correct the violation of a federal right, and

Page 24: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Is the least intrusive means necessary

to correct that violation The court must also give substantial

weight to any adverse impact the proposed relief has on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system

Page 25: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d On existing consent decrees, the PLRA

provides: For termination of a decree, upon motion of

any party or intervener, no later than two years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief

One year after the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief; or

For orders issued prior to the PLRA’s enactment date, two years from the date of the PLRA’s enactment

Page 26: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

A different section of the PLRA places limitations on special masters, including a ban on them making findings or ex parte communications

Page 27: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

Miller v. French (2000) – dates back to 1975 and an inmate class action suit on conditions of confinement Constitutional violations found and

lower courts ordered injunctive relief, remaining in effect through current litigation

Last modification occurred in 1988

Page 28: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d In 1997, the state, citing the PLRA, filed

a motion to end the prospective relief Inmates opposed action – saying the

PLRA’s automatic stay provision (temporary suspension of the court-ordered injunctive relief) violated the separation of powers doctrine

Supreme Court held for government – saying that the stay “merely reflects the changed legal circumstances”

Page 29: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Court held prospective relief under the existing

decree is no longer enforceable, and that it remains unenforceable unless and until the court makes the required findings that

prospective relief continues to be necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the federal right

it extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right

and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn, and

the least intrusive means to correct the violation

Page 30: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Gilmore v. People of the State of California

(2000) – state officials, pursuant to the PLRA, filed for termination of court orders dating back to 1972 and consent decrees dating back to 1980 Appeals court noted that no circuit court has

found the PLRA to violate due process or the Equal Protection clause; the court said it declined “to stray from these precedents”

Page 31: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse

(1997) – dated back to 1971, primarily involving double-bunking of pretrial detainees 1979 consent decree ratified plan for new

facility with single occupancy cells, and phasing out old jail

For various reasons, wasn’t until mid-1990s when new facility was done

Difficulty encountered in adhering to single occupancy

Page 32: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Consent decree modifications in 1985,

1990 and 1994 Following passage of PLRA, state filed

suit to terminate the decree Appeals court ordered termination of

the consent decree Found the PLRA legislation to be rational Withdrawal of prospective relief does not

diminish the right of access PLRA does not impair a fundamental

right

Page 33: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Imprisoned Citizens v. Ridge (1999) –

appeals court held that while the PLRA’s provision for immediate termination of prospective relief singles out certain prisoner rights cases for special treatment, it does so only to advance unquestionably legitimate purposes “to minimize prison micro-management

by federal courts and to conserve judicial resources”

Page 34: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

Benjamin v. Fraser (2001) – suit first brought in 1975, alleging conditions in New York City jails violated pretrial detainees’ constitutional rights Original consent decrees dated to

1978-79 State, under PLRA, attempted to

terminate operation of the decrees

Page 35: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d Lower courts refused to terminate decree

provisions involving attorney visitation Family were allowed to visit during “count”;

attorneys were not – no justification for distinction was provided

No rationale provided as to why the process of bringing detainees to the counsel rooms could not begin upon the attorney’s arrival at the prison, rather than his arrival at the visiting area

The district court had found that attorneys were forced to wait 45 minutes to two hours or longer, after arriving

Page 36: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d No reasons provided why a space reservation

policy could not be used in those institutions with limited visiting areas

Appeals court found measures ordered by earlier consent decrees to be reasonable

To safeguard the detainees’ constitutional rights at minimal cost to the department and

The safeguards did not impair institutional concerns

Page 37: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Effect of the PLRA: cont’d

Appeals court affirmed the “continuing need for prospective relief to correct an ongoing denial of a federal right, and that the relief ordered was sufficiently narrow to satisfy the requirements of the PLRA”

Page 38: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish (1979) First Supreme Court case dealing with

conditions of confinement, and interpreting the Eighth Amendment

Discussed previously with respect to the publishers-only rule for incoming publications and the inspection of personal packages in Chapter 7 (First Amendment), and the issue of searches in Chapter 10 (Fourth Amendment)

Page 39: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d Eighth Amendment also a focus in the case

Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) New York had a planned capacity of 449 inmates

Primarily single occupancy rooms Increased confinement numbers led to

double-bunking Issue - is it a constitutional violation to

“overcrowd” – that is to place two or more inmates in a space planned or designed for one

Page 40: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d Because the inmates were pretrial

detainees, inmates could not be punished at all; issue was one of due process Under the due process clause, a detainee may

not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law

Court focus was to look at whether the conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention amounted to punishment of the detainees

Page 41: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d Court held that if a particular

condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to “punishment” But, if a restriction or condition is

arbitrary or purposeless – a court could permissibly infer that the purpose of the governmental action was punishment

Page 42: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

Court held in Wolfish that as a matter of law, the double-bunking as done at the MCC did not amount to punishment and thus did not violate inmates’ rights under the due process clause Court held the government must be

able to take steps to maintain institution security and order

Page 43: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

The Wolfish ruling is important on two points It provided the standard for

measuring the constitutionality of conditions for pretrial detainees, and

It ruled that double-bunking is not per se unconstitutional

Page 44: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Bell v. Wolfish: cont’d

The Wolfish decision has allowed jails to be double-bunked and otherwise crowded, so long as the conditions do not become “genuine privations and hardships over an extended period of time”

Page 45: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Rhodes v. Chapman (1981)

In Rhodes v. Chapman, the issue was whether the housing of two inmates in a single cell at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility is cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Inmates brought the Section 1983 action,

claiming that double-celling resulted in inmates living too closely together, and that the crowding strained the prison’s facilities and staff

Page 46: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Rhodes v. Chapman: cont’d

This maximum security prison opened in the early 1970s

It had 1,620 cells, each 63 square feet At the time of the lawsuit, the prison

had 2,300 inmates, most doing long-term sentences

Most inmates had to spend 25% of their time in their cells

Page 47: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Rhodes v. Chapman: cont’d Court noted that conditions could not

involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting confinement

This is the current “standard of decency” to measure whether conditions amount to cruel and unusual punishment

Page 48: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Rhodes v. Chapman: cont’d

Court, using this standard, found no cruel and unusual punishment in double bunking per se, or on the conditions that prevailed at the prison, saying “(T)he Constitution does not mandate

comfortable prisons”

Page 49: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Whitley v. Albers (1986)

Whitley v. Albers focused on the use of force Inmates at the Oregon State

Penitentiary took control of a two-tiered cellblock

Inmate Albers lived in the cellblock An officer was taken hostage, and

was being held on the upper tier

Page 50: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Whitley v. Albers: cont’d Officers formed an assault squad to regain

control of the cellblock Captain Whitley was going to go to the second

tier in an effort to free the hostage Three officers were told to shoot low at any

inmates trying to climb the stairs to the second tier – because they would be a threat to Captain Whitley or the hostage

Inmate Albers started up the stairs after Whitley had run up; Albers was shot in the left knee

Hostage was rescued and cellblock retaken

Page 51: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Whitley v. Albers: cont’d

Inmate Albers filed a § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment deprivations because of the physical damage to his knee, plus mental and emotional distress

Page 52: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Whitley v. Albers: cont’d

Court ruled for government, holding that whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering ultimately turns on “whether force was applied in a good

faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm”

Page 53: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Whitley v. Albers: cont’d

Court held that the situation at the penitentiary was “dangerous and volatile” Saw the shooting as within the good

faith effort to restore prison security Court held no Eighth Amendment

violation occurred

Page 54: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

Case involved the shooting of a fleeing suspect by a police officer Court set three standards to be

met for the use of force

Page 55: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Tennessee v. Garner: cont’d

1. Force must be necessary to prevent the escape of the subject

2. Must be probable cause for the officer to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others, and

3. If possible there must be some kind of warning given to the fleeing person before deadly force is used

Page 56: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Tennessee v. Garner: cont’d

Analysis is seen as applicable in looking at the use of force in a prison or jail

First element seen as implicit in using force to stop an escapee or would-be escapee

In a prison disturbance or in an escape, elements 2 and 3 should also be followed

Page 57: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Tennessee v. Garner: cont’d

In a prison that houses convicted felons or those accused of violent crimes, 2nd element appears to be met – to require staff in a prison or jail to identify a person scaling a wall or fleeing from the prison, before shots can be fired, ordinarily would not be reasonable

Page 58: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Tennessee v. Garner: cont’d

Every facility should establish a policy on use of force and especially define those limited situations where deadly force may be used All staff should be fully trained on the

policy guidelines

Page 59: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Wilson v. Seiter (1991) Case involved the conditions of

confinement Inmate in Ohio facility claimed under

Section 1983 that his Eighth Amendment rights were infringed by his treatment Overcrowding Excessive noise Insufficient locker storage space Inadequate heating and cooling

Page 60: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Wilson v. Seiter: cont’d Improper ventilation Unclean and inadequate restrooms Unsanitary dining facilities and food

preparation, and Housing with mentally and physically

ill inmates

Page 61: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Wilson v. Seiter: cont’d Supreme Court qualified its

guidance in Whitley as applying to those circumstances in which officials were reacting to an emergency situation Did not see this high standard –

wanton misconduct shown by actions done “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” - applying to prison conditions cases

Page 62: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Wilson v. Seiter: cont’d Held that in general poor-condition cases,

such as Wilson, the state of mind of prison officials was determinative

To sustain a finding of cruel and unusual punishment, need to show a “deliberate indifference” on the part of officials to the basic needs of the inmate

Each need of inmates, or each claimed violation of constitutional standards, would have to be examined separately to determine the existence of deliberate indifference

Page 63: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Wilson v. Seiter: cont’d Not proper to look at “overall conditions”

to decide cruel and unusual punishment “Nothing so amorphous as “overall

conditions” can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists”

Case remanded to the lower courts to determine whether any one condition violated the “deliberate indifference” standard

Page 64: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian (1992) Case looked at what degree of injury is

required before an inmate can claim an Eighth Amendment—cruel and unusual punishment—violation Hudson, a Louisiana inmate, claimed he

was beaten by guards while he was handcuffed and shackled

Said he sustained minor bruises, some facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate

Page 65: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d

Appeals court held there must be a “significant injury” to constitute an injury recoverable under the Eighth Amendment

Supreme Court reversed, holding the core judicial inquiry is that set forth in Whitley -

was force applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm

Page 66: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d

Court held that a serious injury was not necessary for an inmate to pursue a cruel and unusual punishment claim

Court must look at the particular circumstances

Unjustified striking of an inmate would raise a serious question about the concepts of decency that lie behind the Eighth Amendment

Page 67: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d In Smith v. Mensinger (2002), an

appeals court looked at whether a prison officer could be held liable if he had a reasonable opportunity to intervene but refused to do so Smith received misconduct reports,

including one for punching an officer in the eye

Smith claims he was handcuffed behind his back

Page 68: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d

Claimed several officers then rammed his head into wall and cabinets, and knocked him to the floor, where he was kicked and punched by one officer

Inmate said officer Paulukonis saw the beating but made no effort to intervene or restore order

Page 69: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d Smith filed a § 1983 suit, alleging violation of

his constitutional rights, naming several officers as defendants, including officer Paulukonis

Federal appeals court said officer Paulukonis could be held liable, provided he had a reasonable opportunity to intervene, and simply did not

“The approving silence emanating from the officer who stands by and watches . . . contributes to the actual use of excessive force. . . . Such silence is an endorsement of the constitutional violation resulting from the illegal use of force”

Page 70: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Hudson v. McMillian: cont’d

Appeals court acknowledged that there could be a greater degree of dereliction of duty for a supervisor than for an officer of lower rank

Page 71: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

Farmer was a biological male who was medically diagnosed as a transsexual

He was housed at a federal penitentiary, where he wore clothes in a feminine manner

Page 72: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d Inmate usually segregated from the

general prison population due to his own misconduct and for his safety

He was released into the regular population, without any objection by him

Within two weeks he was beaten and raped by another inmate

Page 73: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d

Farmer filed a Bivens suit (federal equivalent of a § 1983) Claimed he had been subject to cruel

and unusual punishment When transferred to the prison where

officials knew there were assaultive inmates

And where officials knew he would be particularly vulnerable to sexual attack

Page 74: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d He claimed this was deliberate

indifference to his personal safety on the part of prison officials

Lower courts granted prison officials summary judgment

Held liability could be found only if officials had actual knowledge of a potential danger to Farmer

Such knowledge had not been shown

Page 75: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d

Supreme Court, in remanding the case, stated that prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates

Page 76: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d Court held that a prison official may

be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he

Knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and

Disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it (is deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety)

Page 77: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Farmer v. Brennan: cont’d Court said the fact that the inmate had

not given notice that he feared harm was not sufficient to dispose of the case

Court said lower court would have to examine the evidence to see if officials had other reasons to know that the inmate faced a “substantial risk” of serious harm and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid that risk

Page 78: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney (1993) Nevada inmate McKinney filed a § 1983

suit claiming his involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) posed an unreasonable risk to his health, in violation of the Eighth Amendment

Inmate claimed, in part That he suffered from health problems

caused by ETS exposure His prison cell mate was a heavy smoker

Page 79: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d Court restated its ruling in other cases

that prison officials may not be deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s health problems Question whether standard applied only to

current health problems or also to risk of future problems

In answering, Court held it would be “odd” to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved unsafe, life-threatening conditions on the ground that nothing had yet happened to them

Page 80: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

McKinney also argued prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his concerns That current standards of decency do

not support such involuntary exposure as he was required to face in the prison

Page 81: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

Court remanded the case back to the lower court to inquire into the inmate’s allegations To see whether the inmate could show

an Eighth Amendment violation based on ETS exposure

Court held the following needed to be proved:

Page 82: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d That the inmate was being exposed to

unreasonably high levels of ETS That the prison’s intervening adoption of a

smoking policy, including the establishment of nonsmoking areas, did not sufficiently reduce the risks to the inmate

That the complained of risks violated the contemporary “standards of decency” and

That prison officials by their attitude and conduct had shown deliberate indifference to substantial risks to McKinney’s future health

Page 83: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d In Atkinson v. Taylor (2002), an appeals

court looked at the standards of decency and deliberate indifference Atkinson was a blind, diabetic inmate, who

shared a cell with constant smokers He complained he was exposed, with

deliberate indifference, to constant smoking in his cell for over seven months

Page 84: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

He claimed this led to nausea, difficulty breathing, and other symptoms

His requests to prison officials to change these conditions were not successful

Atkinson filed a § 1983 suit, claiming prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him to ETS

Page 85: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

The appeals court, in addressing the “contemporary standards of decency” issue cited Helling and its holding that an inmate had a right to be free from levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of future harm

The court noted that Atkinson had provided evidence that society has become unwilling to tolerate the continuous unwanted risks of second-hand smoke

Page 86: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

As to deliberate indifference, Atkinson produced evidence that after telling prison officials about his sensitivity to ETS, no change was made

The court observed that an inmate cannot simply walk out of his cell whenever he wishes

Confining a nonsmoker to a cell with a “constant” smoker for an extended period of time, can transform a “passing annoyance” into a serious ongoing medical need

Appeals court held evidence showed deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials

Page 87: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

In Reilly v. Grayson (2002), an asthmatic inmate charged Michigan state prison officials with violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment Inmate said he repeatedly complained to

prison officials that his medical problems were worsened by failure to house him in an area free of ETS

Claimed this exposed him to an unreasonable risk of harm to his health and

Constituted deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials

Page 88: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

Appeals court held for the inmate The court stressed the state’s failure to

respond to the repeated medical staff recommendations that the inmate be moved to a smoke-free environment

That the record showed the inmate suffered both an increase in the severity of his asthma and the risk of future damage to his health due to his exposure to ETS

Page 89: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Helling v. McKinney: cont’d

Punitive damages were seen as appropriate based on the defendant’s “reckless . . . disregard of Reilly’s rights”

The appeals court further noted that the compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees were to be paid by the warden and two deputy wardens

Liable in personal capacities for harm caused, and for constitutional violation of Reilly’s rights

Page 90: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity

Focus – immunity in § 1983 cases, where officials may be personally sued because of claimed violations of the constitutional rights of others

Page 91: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d Absolute immunity – persons cannot be

sued because actions are protected - in the interest of public policy – provided the actions are part of their official duties Prosecutors, judges, legislators, and jury

members have this immunity available Government officials in the executive

branch, including prison staff, do not (except for the president)

Page 92: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

In Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985), lawyers for prison staff tried to claim absolute immunity Involved a suit against prison disciplinary

committee members, who had “tried” a case involving an inmate’s misconduct

After finding the inmate committed the prohibited act, the committee imposed a sanction

Government argued committee members were acting like judges, and persons who acted like judges in their government roles should be protected

Page 93: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d Court rejected the argument

Prisons officials were not sufficiently independent

Were not professional hearing officers, and

Did not have the procedural requirements that a judicial officer would have

Qualified, rather than absolute immunity, is available to prison officials

Page 94: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

Qualified immunity is available – how it works: Inmates need to show a violation

of a constitutional right If this can be shown, it must

further be shown that the right was clearly established at the time of the action complained about

Page 95: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

If officials can show either of the above conditions is not met, then they (officials) are entitled to qualified immunity

If the court is convinced by the prison officials’ arguments, the judge will dismiss the lawsuit

Page 96: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

Hope v. Pelzer (2002) – Hope, an Alabama inmate, had been handcuffed to a hitching post in the prison, due to his disruptive conduct He was cuffed with his hands above

the height of his shoulders First time he was cuffed, he was

offered drinking water and given a bathroom break every 15 minutes

Page 97: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

On a second occasion, he was involved in an altercation with an officer at his chain gang’s worksite

He was sent back inside the prison, ordered to take off his shirt, and spent the next seven hours attached to the post

He received one or two water breaks He received no bathroom breaks

Page 98: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

Hope filed a § 1983 action against prison officials, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights

Supreme Court held there was an Eighth Amendment violation

Found in tying Hope to the hitching post when there was no emergency situation requiring that action

This resulted in serious discomfort, including deprivation of bathroom breaks

Page 99: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

Court saw such conduct as a violation of the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment – nothing less than the dignity of man

This met part one of the test for qualified immunity – there was a violation of a constitutional right

Page 100: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

On the second part of the test – was the right clearly established – the Supreme Court held it was

Court cited earlier lower court cases addressing such actions

Also, the U.S. Department of Justice had advised the state to discontinue the use of the post in order to meet constitutional standards

Page 101: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

In sum, the Court found prison officials violated clearly established law

“Hope was treated in a way antithetical to human dignity”

“This wanton treatment was not done of necessity, but as a punishment for prior conduct”

Page 102: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

“Even if there might once have been a question regarding the constitutionality of this practice,” the court rulings, plus the Department of Justice report “put a reasonable officer on notice that the use of the hitching post under the circumstances alleged by Hope was unlawful”

Page 103: Part II Constitutional Law of Corrections. Chapter 15 – Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement – Cruel and Unusual Punishment Introduction: This.

Qualified Immunity: cont’d

Hope shows the importance of keeping prison policy current with developing law, and that prison staff carefully follow the agency’s policy