Philip Wharton v. Carl Danberg
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6716
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- After widely reported release errors in Delaware (including a suicide), the Delaware DOC centralized release processing in a Central Offender Records (COR) office to reduce over-detentions; COR adopted staffing increases, new training, a priority unit, and a new computer system (DACS).
- Appellants are a putative class of over-detained inmates who sued top DDOC officials (Danberg, Coupe, McBride) seeking damages and structural reform, alleging systemic failures at COR causing many over-detentions.
- Record contains impressionistic affidavits from a former COR clerk, a bail bondsperson, and a public defender estimating substantial over-detentions, but lacks reliable, systematic statistical proof quantifying the problem or linking it to specific COR policies.
- Defendants submitted evidence of affirmative remediation efforts (staffing increases, training, new IT, priority units) and argued many over-detentions originate in the courts, not COR.
- The District Court denied class certification (no commonality), held official-capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity, and granted summary judgment for defendants on Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COR officials were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment (supervisory liability for systemic over-detention) | COR leadership knew of widespread over-detentions and failed to meaningfully fix systemic problems (staffing, hours, responsiveness), warranting liability | Officials took affirmative, ongoing steps (staffing, training, DACS, priority unit) showing they addressed the risk; evidence of systemic indifference is speculative | Affirmed for defendants: genuine dispute on notice exists but plaintiffs failed to show deliberate indifference or that reforms so obviously missed the mark as to establish constitutional culpability |
| Whether pretrial detainees’ claims require Fourteenth Amendment analysis instead of Eighth Amendment | Some class members were pretrial detainees; thus Due Process—not Eighth—governs and may permit different analysis | Supervisory claims require deliberate indifference under either clause here; no genuine dispute on deliberate indifference under Fourteenth either | Affirmed: although pretrial detainees are governed by Due Process, supervisory liability still requires deliberate indifference and plaintiffs failed to show it |
| Class certification (commonality under Rule 23) | Over-detentions are systemic and common issues predominate, supporting class treatment | Some over-detentions result from court delays and other individualized causes, defeating commonality | District Court's denial of class certification affirmed (no common contention to resolve central issues in one stroke) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to survive summary judgment (causation / measurement of over-detentions) | Affidavits and anecdotal evidence show large-scale over-detentions and notice to COR; statistical proof unnecessary at summary judgment | Plaintiffs lack reliable quantitative evidence tying over-detentions to COR policies; speculation cannot defeat summary judgment | Affirmed: plaintiffs needed more than impressionistic evidence (e.g., statistical analysis) to show deliberate indifference and causation; speculation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class-certification commonality standard)
- Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243 (3d Cir.) (three-part over-detention test: knowledge, ineffectualness/deliberate indifference, causation)
- Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.) (discussing supervisory duties and when inaction indicates deliberate indifference)
- Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir.) (affirmative investigation can negate deliberate indifference)
- Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.D.C.) (plaintiffs overcame summary judgment with statistical proof tying policies to over-detentions)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainees’ conditions analyzed under Due Process vs. Eighth Amendment for sentenced inmates)
- A.M. ex rel. J.M.K. v. Luzerne Cty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 372 F.3d 572 (3d Cir.) (supervisory liability requires showing of deliberate indifference and causation)
- Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir.) (formulation of four-part supervisory liability test)
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir.) (standard of review on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find for nonmovant)
- Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192 (3d Cir.) (example of medical deliberate indifference analogy)