Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons
849 F.3d 202
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Thomas Heyer, deaf since birth and an ASL user with minimal English literacy, is civilly detained at FCI Butner under the Adam Walsh Act and required to participate in a Commitments and Treatment (CT) Program.
- From 2008–2012 BOP largely refused to provide qualified ASL interpreters for medical visits, CT Program sessions, religious services, and emergency communications; an inmate companion who did not know ASL was assigned instead.
- Heyer experienced serious medical events (including multiple seizures) while unable to communicate with medical staff; BOP later began limited interpreter use and installed a strobe light in his cell, but gaps remained.
- Heyer’s primary outside-communication options at Butner were a TTY (requires written English; access restricted to staff-monitored office hours) and limited email; he requested a videophone for real-time ASL communication.
- Heyer sued under the Fifth Amendment (as a civil detainee), First Amendment, RFRA, and the Rehabilitation Act; the district court granted summary judgment for BOP on most claims and dismissed others as moot based on BOP’s post-litigation promises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Deliberate indifference re: medical care (Fifth Amendment) | Heyer: lack of ASL interpreters during medical encounters exposed him to substantial risk of serious harm (seizures, medication errors). | BOP: no proof of actual adverse medical outcome from lack of interpreters; inmate companion sufficed. | Court: Evidence shows serious need and that BOP knew inmate companion was inadequate; summary judgment vacated and claim remanded. |
| 2) First Amendment – Videophone access | Heyer: ban on videophone (his only realistic ASL option) impinges communication rights and fails Turner review. | BOP: TTY and other written means suffice; videophones pose security/IT risks and costs. | Court: TTY is ineffective for Heyer; factual disputes on Turner factors (security, alternatives, cost); summary judgment vacated. |
| 3) First Amendment – TTY access restrictions | Heyer: staffing limits and denials meaningfully restrict his ability to communicate. | BOP: at most isolated delays; constitutionally reasonable security limits. | Court: Record shows regular denials and insufficient access; factual issues preclude summary judgment. |
| 4) Claims dismissed as moot based on BOP post-litigation promises (religious interpreters, CT Program interpreters, visual alarms) | Heyer: BOP’s mid-litigation assurances are unreliable given past failures; claims not moot and injunctive relief remains live. | BOP: voluntary changes and assurances render claims moot or satisfy relief. | Court: BOP failed heavy burden to show conduct won’t recur; district court erred to treat promises as dispositive; those rulings vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs doctrine)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference requires official’s knowledge of substantial risk)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (reasonableness test for prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)
- Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (civil detainees entitled to more considerate treatment than convicted prisoners)
- Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (Fourth Circuit definition of serious medical need and deliberate indifference components)
- De'lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (adequacy of provided treatment versus treatment of choice)
- Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169 (Turner review and reversible summary judgment where alternatives show regulation an exaggerated response)
- Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219 (deliberate indifference standard elaboration in Fourth Circuit)