622 F. App'x 724
10th Cir.2015Background
- Jorge Casanova, a Cuban refugee with serious medical needs (including prescribed CPAP for severe sleep apnea), was incarcerated in New Mexico from Feb 2002–Mar 2007 and housed in the geriatric unit until Nov 2006.
- On Nov 6, 2006, after a guard allegedly discovered contraband, Warden Ulibarri ordered Casanova removed from the geriatric unit and placed in administrative segregation; Casanova was sent to segregation without his CPAP, glasses, orthopedic shoes, coat, television, or radio.
- Casanova spent about one month in segregation without the medical equipment; prison officials later declined to pursue contraband charges and released him into general population (not returned to geriatric unit).
- After release from prison in Mar 2007, Casanova was hospitalized for about eleven months, which he attributes to deterioration while deprived of prescribed medical equipment and care in segregation.
- District court granted summary judgment to the warden on claims for (a) due process regarding segregation placement, (b) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for withholding equipment/medical care in segregation, and (c) Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect based on placement in general population; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process claim for placement in administrative segregation | Segregation of a geriatric, medically fragile inmate (for ≈1 month) without belongings violated liberty interest | Segregation served legitimate penological purpose (investigation); conditions and duration not extreme or indeterminate | Affirmed — no due process violation under DiMarco factors; medical-equipment deprivation analyzed under Eighth Amendment |
| Eighth Amendment medical-treatment claim (segregation) | Warden personally ordered removal and refused CPAP and other equipment, intentionally interfering with prescribed treatment -> deliberate indifference | No evidence warden knew Casanova lacked care/equipment while in segregation; communications to warden were not shown | Reversed — sufficient evidence (intentional interference by warden) to satisfy subjective prong and, with factual evidence of medical deterioration, create triable Eighth Amendment claim |
| Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect (placement into general population) | Placement in general population exposed infirm inmate to substantial risk because of reputation/family ties and local notoriety from charges | No specific threats, assaults, or affirmative actions by warden increasing risk; no physical or psychological harm shown from placement | Affirmed — insufficient evidence of substantial risk or deliberate indifference to support failure-to-protect claim |
| Eighth Amendment medical claim for time in general population | (Argued on appeal) Inadequate medical treatment continued in general population | Complaint did not plead such a claim; plaintiff never moved to amend; record unclear on specifics | Affirmed — district court not required to recognize or address an unpled, undefined Eighth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires adequate medical care; deliberate indifference test)
- Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (prison has constitutional obligation to provide medical care)
- Estate of DiMarco v. Wyoming Dept. of Corrections, 473 F.3d 1334 (factors for when segregation implicates liberty interest)
- Al-Turki v. Robinson, 762 F.3d 1188 (objective and subjective prongs of deliberate indifference)
- Martin v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Pueblo Cnty., 909 F.2d 402 (intentional interference with prescribed treatment shows deliberate indifference)
- Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (analyze claims under specific constitutional provisions rather than substantive due process)
- Benefield v. McDowall, 241 F.3d 1267 (failure-to-protect requires substantial risk and deliberate indifference)