Charles Selby v. Patricia Caruso
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22163
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Selby, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, sued MDOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process, First Amendment, and RLUIPA violations tied to nearly thirteen years of administrative segregation.
- He was confined in administrative segregation at Marquette Branch Prison for about thirteen years due to a presumed serious escape risk, until release to the general population in January 2011.
- Selby described harsh conditions: long cell locking, limited or no contact, limited yard time, restricted meals and commissary access, restricted health care and library access, constant lighting, and mental health concerns.
- Monthly Administrative Segregation Interview Reports were created 1998–2011; Selby contends a CFA hold biased reviews and that he never learned why or how to obtain removal.
- Policy PD 04.05.120 (effective 2009) gave Warden and RPA authority to release from segregation; disputes exist about actual authority and handling of reviews prior to 2011.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for trial on the due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Selby’s due process rights were violated by prolonged administrative segregation. | Selby asserts lack of meaningful periodic reviews; CFA hold created pretextual confinement. | Officials conducted reviews and relied on substantial evidence of risk; reviews were meaningful. | Genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim. | Right to meaningful periodic reviews was clearly established; officials should have known the risk of pretextual confinement. | No clearly established right; immunity applies where no dispute on facts. | Summary judgment not warranted; factual disputes preclude immunity ruling. |
| Whether Selby’s First Amendment and RLUIPA claims are moot or recoverable. | Denied access to worship services while segregated violated religious rights. | Claims moot after release; damages under RLUIPA not available against states or officials. | RLUIPA damages claims not cognizable against state actors; claims are moot post-release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 1983) (administrative segregation requires meaningful review and cannot be used for indefinite confinement)
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995) (liberty interest from prison confinement must be atypical and significant)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 1985) (some evidence standard for administrative segregation decisions)
- Harris v. Caruso, 465 F. App’x 481 (6th Cir. 2012) (meaningful periodic reviews and some evidence required; indefinite confinement scrutinized)
- Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting notice that indefinite confinement may violate due process and the need for clear right-clarity)
- Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment in qualified immunity analysis when facts are disputed)
- Howard v. Grinage, 82 F.3d 1343 (6th Cir. 1996) (prisoner §1983 liability standards for substantive due process claims)