Brown v. Oregon Department of Corrections
751 F.3d 983
9th Cir.2014Background
- Joshua Brown was placed in Oregon’s Intensive Management Unit (IMU) on June 18, 2008 after a weapons finding and remained there for 27 consecutive months until September 22, 2010.
- IMU conditions: solitary confinement >23 hours/day, very limited out-of-cell time and recreation, severe visitation restrictions, loss of law library, group worship, education, vocational programs, phone access, TV, and most personal property.
- Release from IMU required attainment of Programming Level 4 by completing mandatory behavior-modification "packets"; only one packet could be completed every two weeks, and promotion or release before packet completion was not discretionary.
- ODOC abolished six-month custody-review rules in May 2008; IMU reviews consisted primarily of monthly programming reviews tied to packet completion, which Brown and the court found to be effectively meaningless for altering his confinement.
- Brown filed a pro se § 1983 suit claiming due process violations for lack of periodic, meaningful review; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Brown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IMU confinement implicated a protected liberty interest under Sandin | Brown: 27 months in IMU with severe conditions and no meaningful review is "atypical and significant hardship" | Defendants: IMU conditions mirror other administrative/disciplinary segregation and thus no protected liberty interest | Court: Yes — under any plausible baseline, Brown's confinement imposed atypical and significant hardship and implicated a liberty interest |
| Whether programming reviews provided meaningful process | Brown: Monthly "programming" reviews tied to non-discretionary packet completion were meaningless | Defendants: Monthly programming reviews satisfied periodic-review requirement | Court: Reviews were essentially meaningless because officials lacked discretion to release before packet completion; no meaningful review for 27 months |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars relief against state and official-capacity defendants | Brown: sought relief for constitutional violation | Defendants: sovereign immunity applies to ODOC and official-capacity damages claims | Court: Eleventh Amendment bars claims against ODOC and official-capacity damages; affirmed on that ground |
| Whether individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for damages | Brown: constitutional right to periodic meaningful review was violated | Defendants: right was not clearly established at the time; they are entitled to qualified immunity | Court: Granted qualified immunity — right was not clearly established for money damages at the time; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (procedural protections for prisoners facing disciplinary sanctions)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest depends on "atypical and significant hardship")
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (test factors for atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (acknowledging baseline uncertainty but finding atypicality under any plausible baseline)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (length of confinement relevant to constitutional assessment)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states absent consent)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step analysis may be applied flexibly)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (framing the constitutional-violation / clearly-established analysis for qualified immunity)
- Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.) (state regulations can give rise to liberty interests; relied on in historical context)
- Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity does not bar equitable relief)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (past exposure to harm insufficient for injunctive relief without likelihood of future harm)