491 F. App'x 1
10th Cir.2012Background
- Allen, a pretrial detainee, sued Avance, Captain and Jail Administrator, under §1983 for alleged cruel and unusual conditions and retaliation for grievances.
- Avance moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity.
- The district court denied immunity on the two claims, and Avance appealed the denial of immunity.
- Assumed facts: Allen was placed in the observation cell (drunk tank) for two periods, seven days and four days, without bedding or basic necessities.
- During the stay, his cell had standing water; he lacked toilet paper, toiletries, towels, mattress, and other basic needs; access to legal papers, commissary, and visitation was restricted.
- Allen allegedly filed grievances; Avance allegedly responded with hostility, and the district court found disputed facts on motive and duration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conditions-of-confinement claim defeats immunity given disputed facts | Allen argues deprivations were severe and prolonged | Avance contends the alleged deprivation is not sufficient | Disputed facts could show a violation; immunity denied on this claim |
| Whether the retaliation claim defeats immunity given disputed facts | Allen alleges the retaliation was for filing grievances | Avance argues actions were due to behavior, not protected activity | Disputed facts show possible retaliation; immunity denied on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (district court's factual findings at summary judgment)
- Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185 (2012) (appellate review limited to pure legal questions on immunity)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (inference of retaliatory motive from protected activity)
- Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (retaliation against inmate for exercising rights prohibited)
- Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399 (10th Cir. 1996) (retaliation against inmate for grievances well-established)
- Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433 (10th Cir. 1996) (conditions of confinement must consider duration and deprivation)
- Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980) (living conditions must be humane and provide basic necessities)
- McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2001) (jail must provide humane conditions and basic necessities)