Jimmie Canupp, Jr. v. John Paul
16-11073
| 11th Cir. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- In September–October 2010, inmate Curtis Spires was confined to an isolation cell for 14 days with a broken sink and no running water; the sink was repaired October 13.
- During the confinement Spires often received only 1–2 eight-ounce cups of tea per day, occasional ice, and seven additional cups of water over two weeks; he drank from his toilet about a dozen times and was later treated for dysentery.
- Spires notified officers and Deputy Warden Paul in writing and verbally that he had no potable water and had been drinking from the toilet; he also filed a grievance and a work order was submitted on October 5.
- Officer Thomas had contact with Spires when placing him in the cell and later when Spires told her the sink remained broken; Thomas denies recollection but the district court record contained conflicting evidence about whether she initiated repairs or ignored requests for water.
- Deputy Warden Paul replied to Spires’s October 4 letter with a note that suggested punitive attitude and asserted that work orders should be submitted; Paul claims he checked with staff about a work order but the record lacks corroboration.
- Spires sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, this Court reversed on pleading-stage review, and on remand the district court again granted summary judgment; the Eleventh Circuit reverses summary judgment and remands for further proceedings (qualified immunity left for district court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confinement without running water and being forced to drink from toilet satisfies the Eighth Amendment objective prong | Spires: two-week deprivation of potable water and repeated ingestion of toilet water posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm | Defendants: inmates received beverage/ice/meals and could request water from officers; adequate alternatives existed | Held: Objective prong satisfied — a reasonable jury could find the deprivation extreme and posing a substantial risk of serious harm |
| Whether officers acted with deliberate indifference (subjective prong) — Officer Thomas | Spires: Thomas knew sink broken when she placed him in cell and later ignored complaints; allegedly told him to “enjoy” no water | Thomas: she reported the broken sink to control officer the same day and acted reasonably | Held: Genuine dispute exists — jury could find Thomas had subjective knowledge and disregarded the risk, possibly maliciously |
| Whether officers acted with deliberate indifference — Deputy Warden Paul | Spires: Paul received written notice after seven days without water and a punitive note shows intent to let deprivation continue as punishment | Paul: he contacted unit secretary and learned a work order was pending; acted reasonably | Held: Genuine dispute exists — jury could discredit Paul’s account and infer he knowingly disregarded the risk or intended punishment |
| Whether qualified immunity bars suit | Spires: constitutional violation was clearly established (basic right to potable water) | Defendants: argued entitlement to qualified immunity (not resolved below) | Held: Court did not decide qualified immunity; remanded for district court to decide in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (prisoner may challenge demonstrably unsafe drinking water under Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
- Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2004) (two-part Eighth Amendment test: objective and subjective prongs)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements to prove deliberate indifference)
- Marsh v. Butler Cty., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference to known substantial risk violates Eighth Amendment)
- Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1994) (deprivation must deny minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities)
- Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2015) (prolonged exposure to human waste alleges substantial risk of serious harm)
- LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993) (failure to act after knowledge can demonstrate deliberate indifference)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (malicious or sadistic conduct violates Eighth Amendment)
- Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318 (11th Cir. 1987) (denying water as punishment can violate the Eighth Amendment)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (denial of water as punishment is unconstitutional)