Donald Parkell v. Carl Danberg
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15092
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Parkell, a Delaware inmate, suffered an elbow injury in 2009 and alleges inadequate medical care (delayed treatment, surgeries, limited physical therapy, and missed/ reduced pain medication) and harsh conditions while housed in the infirmary and a C-Building isolation unit.
- While in C-Building isolation, Parkell alleges he was confined to stripped-down cells, denied exercise and basic hygiene access, had minimal human contact, and was subjected to thrice-daily visual body-cavity (anal/genital) inspections.
- Parkell sued state officials (individually and officially) and private medical contractors (CMS, later CCS) and nurses under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments; district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- On appeal, Parkell (with pro bono counsel) narrowed claims: challenged thrice-daily visual body-cavity searches (Fourth Amendment), sought prospective injunctive relief, alleged Eighth Amendment conditions and deliberate indifference to medical needs, and contested denial of appointed counsel.
- Third Circuit: affirmed summary judgment on all claims except reversed as to the Fourth Amendment claim for prospective injunctive relief regarding the thrice-daily visual body-cavity searches; remanded for further proceedings on injunctive relief and mootness issues.
Issues
| Issue | Parkell's Argument | State/Defendant Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment: constitutionality of thrice-daily visual body-cavity searches in C-Building | Searches are unreasonable given isolation, lack of outside contact, and minimal risk of contraband | Searches are justified by security interests and prison deference; Bell permits body-cavity searches | Search policy as applied in C-Building (thrice daily regardless of outside contact) may be unreasonable; summary judgment denied on prospectively stopping the practice |
| Monetary liability for supervisors (supervisory liability) | Supervisors established/maintained or acquiesced in the search policy, so §1983 damages are appropriate | No evidence supervisors created, enforced, or had authority over the C-Building search practice | Insufficient evidence of personal/supervisory involvement for money damages; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Mootness / prospective injunctive relief (capable of repetition yet evading review) | Parkell remains at VCC and faces realistic risk of return to isolation, so injunctive relief is not moot | The challenged confinement was temporary; he is not currently in C-Building; claim may be moot | Court remanded to district court to resolve whether the exception to mootness applies and whether injunctive relief remains live |
| Procedural due process claim re: searches | Parkell argues he was owed separate notice/hearing before subjecting him to routine bodily searches | He received process for placement in isolation; no separate liberty interest for these searches | Searches do not create a protected liberty interest requiring additional notice/hearing; due process claim fails |
| Eighth Amendment — conditions of confinement (infirmary and C-Building) | Conditions (no heat, limited showers/exercise, hygiene deprivation, intrusive searches) amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and showed deliberate indifference | Policies and practices permitted some restrictive measures for high-security inmates; no evidence officials acted with subjective deliberate indifference or malicious intent | No sufficient evidence of officials’ deliberate indifference or malicious motivation; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Eighth Amendment — medical care / deliberate indifference (Medical Defendants, CMS/CCS, Nurse Bryant) | Delayed/denied treatment, inadequate therapy, reduced/missed pain meds amount to deliberate indifference | Medical judgment disputes, logistical/transportation causes, and lack of proof of policy-level deliberate indifference; some issues attributable to DOC, not contractors | Record does not show deliberate indifference by medical defendants or contractors; summary judgment for medical defendants affirmed |
| Denial of appointed counsel | Case involved complex discovery and credibility issues warranting counsel | District court has broad discretion; Parkell had litigation experience and pursued discovery; no special circumstances shown | No abuse of discretion in denying counsel at summary judgment stage; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (supreme court) (adopted Fourth Amendment balancing framework for prison body-cavity searches)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (supreme court) (distinguishes cell/property searches from searches of an inmate’s person; guides privacy-expectation analysis)
- Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (supreme court) (upheld intrusive strip-searches in certain detention contexts; reasonableness standard and deference to corrections officials)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir.) (3d Cir. prior opinion applying Bell framework to strip searches)
- Chavarriaga v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 806 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2015) (supervisory liability requirements under §1983)
- Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2010) (two theories of supervisory liability under §1983)
- Hartmann v. California Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 707 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2013) (prospective injunctive relief against unconstitutional prison policies may proceed even absent damages liability)