Almighty Supreme Born Allah v. Milling
876 F.3d 48
2d Cir.2017Background
- Allah, a Connecticut inmate, was previously placed in Administrative Segregation (A/S) after a 2009 disciplinary incident and discharged before completing the three-phase A/S program.
- After re-arrest in September 2010 as a pretrial detainee, DOC policy/practice placed him in Administrative Detention on re-entry and scheduled a classification hearing to consider continued A/S.
- At the September 30, 2010 hearing, officials relied on Allah’s prior A/S placement and failure to complete the program to recommend continued placement; no individualized finding of present security risk was made.
- Allah was placed in Phase I A/S (highly restrictive solitary-like conditions) from October 4, 2010 through April 2011 as a pretrial detainee, then progressed to Phases II–III and left A/S in November 2011.
- Allah sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging substantive (and argued procedural) due process violations for punitive treatment while pretrial; the district court found a due process violation and denied qualified immunity, awarding damages.
- The Second Circuit agreed A/S placement violated substantive due process for pretrial detainees but reversed on qualified immunity grounds, directing judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assigning a pretrial detainee to Administrative Segregation (A/S) based solely on prior A/S placement violated substantive due process | Allah: Placement was punitive because officials made no individualized risk assessment; conditions were excessively harsh and unrelated to security | Defendants: Placement was a legitimate security measure grounded in prior disciplinary history and DOC classification practice | Held: Violation — inferring punishment where A/S was imposed without individualized assessment and imposed severe conditions disproportionate to any identified security need |
| Whether the specific conditions of Phase I A/S (23-hour confinement, restraints during movement and showering, severely limited visits/phone/mail) were punitive | Allah: Conditions were excessive and punitive in relation to any legitimate purpose | Defendants: Conditions are permissible security measures in detention settings | Held: Many conditions were excessive and near the kind of treatment Wolfish described as demonstrably punitive; supported the substantive due process violation finding |
| Whether procedural due process at the classification hearing was violated (notice, ability to present evidence, reasons given) | Allah: Classification employed an improper standard (focused on prior A/S status rather than present risk) | Defendants: Hearing procedures (notice, opportunity) were adequate | Held: Court treated the claim as substantive under Wolfish; Allah disavowed a separate procedural challenge and the court did not find procedural due process violation on the record |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for imposing A/S under DOC practice | Allah: Wolfish clearly established that pretrial detainees cannot be punished; officials should have known practice unlawful | Defendants: They followed established DOC practice and lacked clearly established law forbidding this specific application | Held: Qualified immunity granted — although rights were violated, the constitutional contours were not clearly established as to using prior A/S status automatically, so reasonable officials could have erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial detainees may not be punished; restrictions must be reasonably related to legitimate goals and not excessive)
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (test for punishment vs. regulatory measures)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1984) (discussion of Wolfish substantive due process standard for detainees)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity: avoid defining rights at high level of generality)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (U.S. 2012) (qualified immunity protects officials unless violation of clearly established law is shown)
- Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) (look to Supreme Court and circuit law to determine whether right is clearly established)
- United States v. Briggs, 697 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for due process challenges to pretrial detention)
- Zalaski v. City of Hartford, 723 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2013) (de novo review of qualified immunity after bench trial)
- Cabral v. Strada, [citation="513 F. App'x 99"] (2d Cir. 2013) (upholding restrictive housing where individualized security evidence existed)
- Taylor v. Comm'r of N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., [citation="317 F. App'x 80"] (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding segregation where tied to specific safety/security evidence)