Fred Dalton Brooks v. Warden
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15696
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Brooks, an SMU inmate, alleged another inmate (Watson) threatened him shortly after placement; he reported threats to Warden Humphrey, Deputy Wardens Powell and Bishop, and SMU manager McMillan but was not moved.
- On Feb. 29, 2012, all 32 doors in the SMU dormitory allegedly opened, a riot occurred, and Watson brutally attacked Brooks, causing serious injuries that required transfer to Spalding County Hospital.
- While hospitalized for three days, Brooks was kept in leg irons and a waist-chain; he was given medication that liquefied his stool and repeatedly begged Deputy Warden Powell to lower restraints so he could use the toilet.
- Powell allegedly refused, denied nursing staff permission to clean Brooks or provide a diaper, and, with other officers, mocked Brooks as he sat in his own feces for two days; Brooks alleged no additional physical injury from the hospital stay.
- District court dismissed both Brooks’s failure-to-protect claim (riot) and his Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim (hospital). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the riot claim, reversed as to the hospital mistreatment claim, denied qualified immunity for Powell, and held Brooks may seek nominal (but not compensatory/punitive) damages under §1997e(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect (prison riot) — was there a substantial, foreseeable risk? | Brooks: Watson’s threats plus prior episodes of doors opening created a strong likelihood of attack. | Defendants: Risk was speculative; attack required an unplanned simultaneous opening of multiple doors — not foreseeable. | Held: Dismissed. Brooks did not plausibly allege a substantial (as opposed to merely possible) risk prior to the riot. |
| Eighth Amendment — deprivation of basic sanitation during hospital stay (deliberate indifference) | Brooks: Powell refused toilet access/cleaning/diaper, causing prolonged exposure to feces and humiliation — creating an obvious health and dignity risk. | Powell: Actions were justified by security concerns; alleged conduct amounted to mere discomfort, not constitutional injury. | Held: Reversed. Allegations state an Eighth Amendment violation: objective risk and subjective deliberate indifference adequately pleaded. |
| Qualified immunity and remedies under PLRA §1997e(e) | Brooks: Powell knew or should have known conduct violated Eighth Amendment; seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. | Powell: No clearly established law put him on notice; PLRA bars recovery absent physical injury. | Held: Qualified immunity denied — conduct was clearly unlawful (and obvious). PLRA bars compensatory/punitive damages (no physical injury), but nominal damages for constitutional violation are available; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment duty to protect inmates from prisoner-on-prisoner violence)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (officials can be on notice of Eighth Amendment violations in novel contexts; humiliating/degrading treatment)
- Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of deliberate indifference and cellmate violence)
- Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d 1057 (Eighth Amendment violation for conditions lacking basic sanitation)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (nominal damages vindicate deprivation of constitutional rights)
- Rodriguez v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 508 F.3d 611 (substantial risk where explicit gang-related threats were reported and exposure was certain)