524 F. App'x 467
10th Cir.2013Background
- Grissom, a Kansas death-sentenced inmate, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple constitutional-rights violations during confinement at EDCF, LCF, and HCF.
- He has remained in administrative segregation since 1996 after being deemed a threat due to drug trafficking and contraband,
- In 2005, after additional contraband discoveries, a more restrictive management protocol was adopted, including cell surveillance, restricted staff contact, more frequent searches, and rotational transfers among facilities.
- Since May 2005, Grissom’s segregation status has been reviewed regularly through monthly and semi-annual reviews, with opportunities for participation.
- In 2007, Grissom filed a pro se complaint; the district court converted a Rule 12 dismissal to summary judgment, leading to dismissal of all claims after consideration of a Martinez report and qualified-immunity defenses.
- The district court granted summary judgment, including dismissing Werholtz for lack of personal participation and ruling the other defendants entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal participation of Werholtz | Grissom contends Werholtz had personal involvement and responsibility. | Werholtz asserts no direct involvement; protocol was set by wardens and facility staff. | Werholtz properly dismissed for lack of personal participation. |
| Magazine-subscription ban for segregation inmates | The ban violated First Amendment rights by restricting access to reading material. | Regulation reasonably relates to penological interests and alternatives exist (library), no material factual dispute. | No genuine issue; regulation upheld under Turner analysis. |
| Due process and Eighth Amendment concerns from long-term segregation | Extended isolation violated due process and potentially Eighth Amendment protections. | Four-factor DiMarco test shows no implicated liberty interest or due process violation; conditions not extreme. | No protected liberty interest; no due process violation; Eighth Amendment claim waived/inadequate challenge. |
| Free Exercise and Establishment Clause regarding Celtic cross | Forced change of religious designation to keep cross infringed free exercise. | Regulation governs approved religious artifacts; no substantial burden on sincere belief. | No substantial burden; no violation of Free Exercise or Establishment Clause. |
| Qualified immunity as to other defendants | Defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights. | No genuine material facts showing violation; qualified immunity applies. | Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) (upholds magazine access restrictions for segregated inmates)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (Turner four-factor test for penological interests)
- Estate of DiMarco v. Wyoming Dep’t of Corr., 473 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2007) (four-factor test for liberty interest in segregation)
- Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard in qualified-immunity context)
- Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009) (burden-shifting framework for qualified immunity)