Kory Putney v. R. Likin, 656 F. App'x 632

Background

Putney, a Maryland inmate at WCI, had his mattress removed during a June 28, 2011 shakedown; he was found not guilty at discipline hearings on July 1 and July 11, 2011.
Warden and COs refused to return a mattress for more than four months despite an Assistant Commissioner’s October 17 order directing the mattress be issued after Putney’s appeals were found meritorious.
Putney alleged sleep loss, headaches, and back/neck pain; medical records show prescriptions for Amitriptyline, Ibuprofen, Baclofen, and Excedrin but limited documentation of persistent injury.
Putney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violation and sought discovery; defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment asserting lack of objective injury and qualified immunity.
The district court construed the filing as summary judgment, granted it without ruling on Putney’s discovery request or on qualified immunity, finding no sufficient objective injury.
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court failed to (1) analyze the risk-of-harm component of the objective Eighth Amendment inquiry and (2) address Putney’s Rule 56(d) discovery request before granting summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Putney's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether deprivation of mattress for >4 months satisfies the Eighth Amendment objective prong	Deprivation created substantial risk of serious harm (sleep loss, headaches, pain) and thus meets the objective standard	Injury was not objectively significant; medical records do not show ongoing harm	Vacated and remanded: court must consider risk-of-harm (not just actual injury) when assessing the objective prong
Whether district court abused discretion by ruling before allowing discovery	Putney said key evidence (WCI policy, other inmates’ treatment, medical records) was in defendants’ control and requested discovery under Rule 56(d)	Defendants argued Putney’s Rule 56(d) request was procedurally insufficient and speculative	Vacated and remanded: district court abused discretion by not addressing or allowing discovery before ruling
Whether district court properly required plaintiff to present more medical/other evidence at summary judgment without discovery	Putney contended he could not obtain necessary records and witness declarations without discovery	Defendants argued lack of proof justified summary judgment	Court: Summary judgment premature where key evidence is controlled by defendants and non-movant sought discovery; discovery should be allowed before ruling
Whether qualified immunity should be addressed later or first on remand	Putney focused on merits of Eighth Amendment claim	Defendants asserted qualified immunity as protection from discovery/suit	Concurring judge: qualified immunity should be addressed first on remand because it can bar discovery and suit; majority required it be addressed but did not mandate order — district court should consider it early

Key Cases Cited

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment does not mandate comfortable prisons; prohibits unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (prison officials may not ignore conditions that are sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison officials must ensure humane conditions and show deliberate indifference for Eighth Amendment claim)
De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (two-part Eighth Amendment test: objective seriousness and subjective culpability)
Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 1995) (substantial risk of serious harm can satisfy the objective prong)
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002) (Rule 56(d) affidavit not required where party adequately informed district court discovery was needed)
Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion to deny discovery when key evidence is solely in defendant’s control)
McCray v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., 741 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2014) (courts have broad discretion over discovery; deny only for clear abuse)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis and importance of resolving immunity early)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (pattern of conduct showing sham or nonuniform application of policy can show officials knew wrongful character of conduct)