911 N.W.2d 621
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff D.M., an inmate at Omaha Correctional Center, alleged he was sexually assaulted by guard Anthony Hansen and reported the assault through prison grievance procedures.
- After reporting, D.M. was placed in segregation for over 30 days, isolated from other inmates, limited in phone/contact, instructed not to speak about the allegations, and repeatedly interrogated by investigator Geoff Britton.
- Hansen eventually pled guilty; D.M. was later transferred to a higher-security facility and received minimal counseling.
- D.M. sued the State, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, and individual defendants (including Britton and Warden Michael Kenney) asserting First Amendment retaliation, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection, and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims, among others.
- Britton and Kenney moved to dismiss and asserted qualified immunity; the district court denied their motions and they appealed interlocutorily.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and addressed whether the denial of qualified immunity was immediately appealable and whether the constitutional claims as pleaded survived as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment retaliation claim is appealable on qualified immunity grounds | Reporting the assault via grievance is protected speech; segregation and restrictions were retaliatory | Qualified immunity; claim requires factual resolution, so not ripe for immediate review | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as resolution would turn on factual disputes; not immediately appealable |
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment due process claim survives | Segregation and conditions were atypical, imposing significant hardship implicating liberty interest | Segregation alone does not create a liberty interest; facts alleged do not meet Sandin threshold | Reversed in part: D.M. failed to state a due process claim as a matter of law; Britton and Kenney entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim survives | D.M. was treated differently than similarly situated inmates without rational basis | Pleading conclusory; no protected class or fundamental right alleged; no facts showing disparate treatment or purposeful discrimination | Reversed in part: claim insufficient as a matter of law; qualified immunity for defendants |
| Whether Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim survives against Britton and Kenney | Isolation and conditions (and the assault) constitute cruel and unusual punishment; supervisors liable | No allegation of deprivation of basic human need or deliberate indifference by these supervisory defendants; no personal involvement in assault | Reversed in part: Eighth Amendment claim fails as pleaded; supervisors entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Miller, 287 Neb. 400 (Neb. 2014) (sets three-part collateral-order/qualified immunity analysis)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (limits collateral-order interlocutory appeals; discussion of scope)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1991) (importance of resolving qualified immunity early)
- Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2016) (First Amendment retaliation framework)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty-interest threshold for administrative segregation)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) (conditions-of-confinement cumulative-deprivation analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (definition of "clearly established" law for qualified immunity)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (deference to prison administrators on policies affecting order and security)
- Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2013) (prison-grievance retaliation recognized as First Amendment protection)