911 N.W.2d 621
Neb. Ct. App.2018Background
- D.M., an inmate at Omaha Correctional Center, 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 contacts and phone use, and repeatedly interrogated by investigator Geoff Britton; D.M. alleges Britton coerced him to recant.
- Hansen eventually pled guilty; D.M. was later transferred to a maximum security facility and received minimal counseling before release.
- D.M. sued the State, the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, and individual defendants including Britton and Warden Michael Kenney, alleging First Amendment retaliation, 14th Amendment due process and equal protection violations, and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment, among other tort claims.
- The district court denied Britton’s and Kenney’s motions to dismiss asserting qualified immunity; they appealed interlocutorily. The appellate court reviewed jurisdiction and the merits of qualified immunity for the constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation: whether reporting the assault and subsequent isolation/limitations were retaliatory | D.M.: reporting was protected speech; segregation, shunning, and restricted contacts were adverse actions motivated by retaliation | Britton/Kenney: actions were legitimate investigatory/safety measures, not retaliation; factual dispute exists | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as resolution requires factfinding; not immediately reviewable under collateral order doctrine |
| Due process (14th): whether segregation and conditions imposed an "atypical and significant hardship" creating a liberty interest | D.M.: segregation + shunning and interrogation were atypical and significant hardships implicating due process | Defendants: segregation and alleged conditions did not rise to the Sandin standard; no protected liberty interest | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; claim fails as a matter of law |
| Equal protection (14th): whether D.M. was intentionally treated differently without rational basis | D.M.: treated differently than other segregated inmates without rational basis | Defendants: allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing similarly situated comparison, purposeful discrimination, or lack of rational basis | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; claim fails for insufficient allegations |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (8th): whether segregation conditions or the assault implicate Eighth Amendment liability against Britton and Kenney | D.M.: isolation and the assault constitute cruel and unusual punishment; supervisors are liable | Defendants: no allegation they deprived D.M. of basic human needs or that supervisors personally participated/knowingly acquiesced in assault; Farmer requires deliberate indifference | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; allegations do not meet objective and subjective Eighth Amendment standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Carney v. Miller, 287 Neb. 400, 842 N.W.2d 782 (establishes collateral order/qualified immunity framework in Nebraska)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458, 894 N.W.2d 296 (limits collateral-order applications; discussion of Nebraska appellate jurisdiction)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (importance of resolving qualified immunity early)
- Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984 (First Amendment protects prison grievance activity from retaliation)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (examples of conditions supporting retaliation claim)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty-interest standard for restrictive confinement)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (conditions-of-confinement context; combining deprivations)