Redmond v. Crowther
882 F.3d 927
10th Cir.2018Background
- In August 2011 at Utah State Prison, inmate Hill locked himself in an outdoor recreation yard, threatened staff, and refused orders; prison officials deployed CS gas to subdue him.
- The recreation yard contained an HVAC intake vent that drew the CS gas into the prison, exposing roughly 100 inmates in multiple housing sections and some administrative areas to irritant effects (burning eyes, nose, breathing difficulty).
- Officers evacuated prisoners from Sections B and C after securing Hill; they did not evacuate Sections A and D but opened cell ports and used fans; medical staff walked the tiers offering assistance.
- Plaintiffs (a class represented by Timothy Redmond) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations (excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, conditions-of-confinement, failure to train) and brought claims under the Utah Constitution’s unnecessary-rigor clause; they sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (officers Nicholes, Powell, and official-capacity defendant Crowther); the Tenth Circuit affirmed, principally on qualified immunity and failure to show clearly established law or requisite culpable mental state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exposure of non-target inmates to CS gas during a forceful extraction violated the Eighth Amendment (excessive force) | Redmond: officers’ use of CS gas (which reached many cells) constituted excessive force against exposed inmates | Officers: use of gas was to restore order against Hill; other exposures were inadvertent; decision entitled to deference | Court: applied excessive-force framework; exposure was inadvertent, not malicious/sadistic; no constitutional violation proven and qualified immunity applies |
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by delaying/denying evacuation, showers, or medical care | Redmond: Powell delayed evacuation of B/C, did not evacuate A/D, discouraged seeking medical aid, and limited showers/decontamination | Defendants: rapid response to secure Hill and then evacuate; medical staff offered care; opening ports and fans was reasonable; discouraging statement was inadequately briefed/forfeited | Court: plaintiffs failed to show subjective deliberate indifference or substantial harm; claim largely forfeited; qualified immunity protects defendants |
| Whether verbal insults/intimidation or failure to train created an unconstitutional condition of confinement | Redmond: insults and lack of training violated Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement | Defendants: isolated insults and general training allegations do not meet objective or clearly established law | Court: no sufficiently serious condition shown; failure-to-train claim not clearly established |
| Whether Utah Constitution’s unnecessary-rigor clause was violated and whether plaintiff has standing for injunctive relief | Redmond: state constitutional claim for unnecessary rigor; sought injunctive relief to require written gas-use policies | Defendants: conduct was at most negligent (not "more than negligent"); new procedures were implemented; plaintiff’s injunctive claim speculative | Court: Utah claim fails because conduct was negligent (not flagrant); plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (use-of-force to restore order analyzed under excessive-force framework)
- DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) (context for excessive-force review and examples of malicious/sadistic use)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law requires specificity; qualified immunity standard)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (warning against defining clearly established law at a high level of generality)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for conditions-of-confinement claims)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (general legal statements ordinarily insufficient to clearly establish rights)
- Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (elements of an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim)