John Townsend v. Sarah Cooper
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13776
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff John Townsend, a mentally ill Wisconsin state prisoner, was repeatedly placed on a Segregation unit Behavior Action Plan (BAP) at Green Bay Correctional Institution for a mix of self-harm risk and rule infractions.
- BAPs restricted property and privileges (clothing, bedding, hygiene, writing materials, mail, out-of-cell time) with no set end date, no formal hearing, and no procedure to challenge conditions.
- Between June 24, 2005 and March 31, 2006 Townsend was on BAPs for 259 days and, at times, was naked or issued only paper gowns/smocks, denied mattress/sheets/pillow, limited to bag meals, and denied toiletries and writing materials.
- Prison mental-health staff sometimes placed Townsend on observation status and visited him, but did not transfer him to the Wisconsin Resource Center after an earlier psychiatrist recommended urgent transfer.
- Townsend sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: (1) Fourteenth Amendment due process violation for imposition of BAP without notice or hearing; (2) Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violation; and (3) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by prison psychologists.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of the BAP without notice/opportunity to object violated due process (liberty interest in avoiding atypical and significant hardship) | Townsend: BAP is punitive/harsher than ordinary prison life; no procedural protections were provided | Defendants: BAP is nonpunitive, safety-oriented; Townsend received notice of BAP terms and could end restrictions by stabilizing behavior | Court: Genuine factual disputes; conditions and duration were atypical and significant—due process claim may proceed (vacated & remanded) |
| Whether conditions imposed under BAP violated the Eighth Amendment (minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities) | Townsend: Deprivation of clothing, bedding, hygiene, mattress, writing materials, limited showers and out-of-cell time amounted to cruel and unusual punishment | Defendants: Conditions were for safety, imposed for legitimate penological reasons, and could be eased by compliant behavior | Court: Material factual disputes exist; conditions similar to Gillis support Eighth Amendment claim to proceed (vacated & remanded) |
| Whether prison psychologists were deliberately indifferent to Townsend's serious medical (mental health) needs | Townsend: Psychologists aggravated his condition by imposing BAP despite evidence segregation harms mentally ill inmates; failure to seek transfer and skepticism about his symptoms show disregard | Defendants: Psychologists regularly assessed him, adjusted property for safety, placed him on observation when suicidal, and did not consciously disregard risk | Court: No evidence that psychologists consciously disregarded substantial risk; summary judgment for defendants on deliberate indifference claim affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (establishes "atypical and significant hardship" test for prison liberty interests)
- Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2006) (upheld due process and Eighth Amendment claims where behavioral program imposed severe property and hygiene deprivations)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prison officials must provide medical care; deliberate indifference test)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment minimal civilized measures standard for conditions of confinement)