Garrick Harrington v. A. Scribner
785 F.3d 1299
9th Cir.2015Background
- In early 2004 California State Prison–Corcoran experienced multiple violent incidents involving African American inmates and gangs; prison officials imposed a race-based lockdown and later race-based shower restrictions.
- Shower restrictions required minimal clothing, handcuffs during escort, and initially applied only to African American inmates (and certain disruptive-group members) after an all-races emergency period ended.
- Garrick Harrington, an African American inmate not involved in the violence, slipped while escorted to a shower in flimsy shower slippers and suffered a back injury; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Harrington alleged (1) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (unsafe conditions—shower escort/clothing) and (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (race-based lockdown and shower restrictions).
- A jury returned verdicts for the defendants; Harrington appealed, challenging the jury instructions and denial of appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference instruction | Court should have given an instruction clarifying that knowledge may be inferred from obviousness/circumstantial evidence | Court’s instruction correctly stated Farmer’s subjective-knowledge standard and allowed circumstantial evidence generally | Affirmed — district court’s Eighth Amendment instructions were proper; supplemental instruction did not impermissibly heighten the knowledge requirement |
| Equal Protection — applicable standard and effect of deference instruction | Johnson requires strict scrutiny; jury must be instructed to test whether race-based measures were narrowly tailored; no deference that dilutes narrow-tailoring | Deference to prison officials’ expertise (Norwood/Turner) is appropriate and can inform the jury's assessment | Reversed — trial court erred by giving a deference instruction that undermined Johnson’s narrow-tailoring strict scrutiny requirement; error was prejudicial |
| Prejudice from instructional error on equal protection | Instructional melding of deference with strict scrutiny likely affected jury’s verdict on discrimination question | Defendants argue verdict form shows jury found no racial classification, so any error was harmless | Held prejudicial — combination of instructions misled jury; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Denial of appointed counsel | Harrington argued he needed counsel given legal issues and medical condition | Defendants supported district court’s discretion to deny counsel; Harrington had litigated effectively pro se | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; Harrington adequately articulated claims and litigated them |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (strict scrutiny governs race-based prison classifications)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (deference to prison officials on regulations affecting prison administration)
- Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (endorsing deference to prison officials on conditions-of-confinement claims)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (deference to governmental actors may inform compelling-interest showing but not narrow-tailoring determination)