Lance Wood v. Tom Beauclair
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18575
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Wood, a state prisoner in Idaho, alleges prison guard Sandra de Martin sexually abused him under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- Wood and Martin developed a romantic relationship; Wood alleges touching events occurred during and after the relationship.
- First incident: Martin entered Wood’s cell, placed hand on his groin; Wood claims non-consent and distress.
- Second incident: after termination of the relationship, Martin touched Wood’s genitals in his cell.
- District court granted summary judgment on Wood’s Eighth Amendment claims; Wood appealed the denial of partial summary judgment on these claims and related First Amendment and Fourth Amendment theories.
- Court remands for trial on the first incident while affirming/neutralizing other claimed aspects; overall disposition partially reversed, partially affirmed, remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can consent negate an Eighth Amendment claim in prison settings? | Wood argues consent cannot shield coercive, inmate-guard sexual acts. | State argues consent defense may apply where applicable. | Presumption of non-consent; remand for trial (consent defense not complete bar). |
| Does the second incident state an Eighth Amendment claim under malice/sadism and objective offensiveness? | Wood alleges coercive, non-penological sexual act; no legitimate purpose. | Defendant contends no malicious intent or objective harm. | Sexual contact by a guard against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment; sufficient to state claim. |
| Was Wood's deliberate indifference claim properly granted summary judgment? | Officials ignored risk to Wood; evidence of knowledge and disregard. | No notice that Martin posed substantial risk. | Affirmed summary judgment on deliberate indifference. |
| Was Wood's First Amendment retaliation claim properly granted summary judgment? | Retaliation for grievances; transfer was punitive. | Transfer served a legitimate correctional goal; not retaliatory. | Affirmed summary judgment on retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (excessive force standard; evolving standards of decency)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (prisoner sexual abuse violates Eighth Amendment; dignity</caseCaption>)
- Ault v. Freitas, 109 F.3d 1335 (8th Cir. 1997) (consent defense for prison guard not clearly controlling; relevant in consent discussion)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (conditions of confinement; Eighth Amendment standard; penological justification)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (discipline decisions; deference to prison officials)
- Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998) (sexual harassment by guard; objective harm admissible)
- Watson v. Jones, 980 F.2d 1165 (8th Cir. 1992) (pat-downs; potential sexual abuse state claims)
- Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003) (strip search dignity; Eighth Amendment violation)