Jerome Williams v. Jon Ozmint
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9754
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Williams, an inmate at Evans Correctional Institution, challenged a two-year visitation suspension imposed after he was observed with suspected contraband during a visit.
- Officers escorted Williams to a strip search; Williams swallowed something, leading to placement in a dry cell for 72 hours and subsequent confinement in Special Management Unit.
- No contraband was found on Williams, nor was he charged with a disciplinary offense; the visitation suspension was issued by Warden Eagle-ton.
- Williams filed a pro se state-court complaint in December 2008 asserting constitutional violations related to the visitation suspension and other conditions of confinement.
- The district court granted summary judgment for most claims but denied it on the visitation issue, concluding prisoners have no constitutional right to visitation.
- The court later held the warden entitled to qualified immunity on the monetary-damages claim and dismissed injunctive relief as moot because visitation had been restored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warden’s two-year visitation suspension violated the inmate’s rights. | Williams contends a constitutional right to visitation was violated. | Eagle-ton acted within permissible penological discretion without a clearly established right. | No clearly established right to visitation; warden entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Whether Williams’ request for injunctive relief is moot. | Visitation policy could affect Williams while incarcerated. | Visitation privileges were restored; mootness applies. | Injunctive-relief claim moot; affirm dismissal. |
| Whether Williams sought declaratory relief and, if so, whether it was preserved. | Complaint could be read as seeking declaratory relief. | Catch-all language did not preserve a declaratory-judgment claim. | No declaratory-relief claim preserved. |
| Whether the excessive-force verdict and counsel-ineffectiveness claims merit appellate review. | Challenging jury verdict and ineffective assistance. | No substantial question for review; counsel not required pro se. | Jury verdict undisputed on excessive force; no reversible error on counsel issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 F.3d 126 (U.S. (2003)) (upheld prison visitation restrictions as rational for penological interests)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (U.S. (1984)) (no right to contact visits where security justified)
- Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. (1989)) (prison visitation rights not guaranteed by due process)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. (1995)) (liberty interests created by state must be atypical and significant)
- White v. Keller, 438 F.Supp. 110 (D. Md. (1977)) (no constitutional right to prison visitation; discretionary policy)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. (1987)) (clearly established-law standard for qualified immunity)
- Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. (2007)) (mootness exceptions in inmate challenges to prison policies)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. (2001)) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis (not mandatory order))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. (2009)) (adopts flexible approach to qualified-immunity analysis)