Johnson v. Chappius, 1:20-cv-00604

Background:

On Aug. 4, 2017 an Elmira Correctional Facility x‑ray showed a metallic object in Christopher Johnson’s rectal area; staff placed him on one‑on‑one contraband watch (authorized by security officials).
Contraband‑watch conditions: inmate wore a smock (no regular clothing), was observed via a window around the clock, had to urinate/defecate in view for inspection, had restricted hygiene and no showers, and was denied recreation/phone/mail (medical logs reflect limited soap/water/toothbrush provision on several dates).
Dr. Kevin Ott monitored Johnson frequently, ordered multiple x‑rays, and twice prescribed full liquid diets (Aug. 21–24 and Sep. 6–Oct. 2) to address suspected stool‑withholding; Johnson sometimes refused x‑rays.
Disciplinary incidents: Aug. 17 refusal to comply with an x‑ray led to an IMR for threats/harassment; Aug. 22 bed‑pushing generated a second IMR and removal of the bedframe.
On Oct. 4 Johnson passed a large bowel movement, x‑ray was negative for foreign object, and he was released from contraband watch; he later filed a §1983 suit (Eighth, Fourteenth, First Amendment claims).
Magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants, concluding (inter alia) no Eighth Amendment violation, no protected liberty interest for due process, retaliation claim lacked causation, and Dr. Ott’s declaration was admissible.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Ott declaration (disclosure under Rule 26)	Ott was not disclosed; declaration should be excluded	Medical records produced long before discovery closed; disclosures warned medical personnel in records may testify	Court admitted Ott’s declaration as defendants’ failure to name him was harmless and testimony was important
Eighth Amendment — conditions of confinement	61‑day contraband watch, observed toileting, removal of mattress/bedframe, and prolonged liquid diets constituted cruel and unusual punishment	Watch and restrictions were penologically justified by x‑ray showing possible weapon; liquid diets were medical orders by Dr. Ott; medical staff monitored Johnson frequently	No Eighth Amendment violation; objective and subjective prongs not met; summary judgment for defendants
Fourteenth Amendment — procedural due process (liberty interest)	61 days in restrictive contraband watch was an atypical and significant hardship	Period <101 days and conditions were not shown to be more severe than usual; medical decisions and complaints implicate medical staff, not defendants	No protected liberty interest shown; due process claim fails
First Amendment — retaliation	Complaints about conditions prompted IMRs (Aug. 17, Aug. 22) in retaliation	IMRs arose from misconduct (refusal to comply, threats, bed‑pushing); plaintiff offers no evidence of causal link beyond temporal proximity	Retaliation claim fails for lack of causal connection; summary judgment for defendants

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (§1983 is procedural vehicle for constitutional claims)
Trammell v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155 (deliberate indifference and penological justification in prison‑condition cases)
Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (restrictive confinement <101 days generally does not create liberty interest absent unusually severe conditions)
Preuss v. Kolmar Lab’ys, 970 F. Supp. 2d 171 (Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions framework and factors for preclusion)
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Moses, 913 F.3d 297 (party may not rely on speculation to defeat summary judgment)