Robert Wilkerson v. Richard Stalder
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23762
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Albert Woodfox has spent nearly 39 years in closed-cell restriction (CCR), effectively solitary confinement (≈23 hours/day), first at Angola (LSP) and since November 2010 at David Wade Correctional Facility (Wade).
- CCR restricts exercise, visitation, property, work, education, and legal access; review boards purportedly review placement every 90 days but appear to issue rote, indefinite findings.
- Woodfox sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourteenth Amendment due process violations based on indefinite prolonged solitary confinement; Wade officials moved for qualified immunity on summary judgment.
- District court denied qualified immunity, finding disputed facts whether CCR placement was an initial classification or punitive and concluding the duration and conditions were ‘‘atypical and significant’’ giving rise to a liberty interest.
- Fifth Circuit (Graves, J.) affirms denial of qualified immunity, holding Woodfox’s near-four-decade, effectively indefinite, 23-hour/day isolation with limited human contact implicates a clearly established liberty interest and remanding to resolve adequacy of procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCR placement implicates a protected liberty interest | Woodfox: decades-long, indefinite 23-hour isolation + severe restrictions is an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin/Wilkinson | Wade: placement was an initial classification; generally no liberty interest in custodial classification | Held: Yes — under Sandin/Wilkinson, the duration, severity, and indefiniteness here create a liberty interest |
| Whether law was clearly established in 2010 | Woodfox: Wilkinson and circuit precedent warned that indefinite, highly restrictive confinement can implicate due process | Wade: relied on earlier assumption (Wilkerson I) that initial classification alone does not create a liberty interest | Held: Yes — Wilkinson and later circuit cases gave fair warning; no reasonable official could think decades-long indefinite isolation did not implicate due process |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Wade defendants | Woodfox: defendants had notice of the liberty interest and must provide adequate procedures | Wade: argued objective reasonableness and no clearly established right | Held: Denied — qualified immunity not available because right was clearly established; case remanded to assess adequacy of process |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (establishes atypical-and-significant-hardship test for prison liberty interests)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (indefinite placement in highly restrictive Supermax can create a liberty interest)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step and flexibility in analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (what it means for law to be clearly established)
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (Fifth Circuit discussion of qualified immunity and objective reasonableness)
- Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431 (prior Fifth Circuit decision in this litigation addressing classification/due process)
- Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556 (Fifth Circuit: extraordinary circumstances permit due process challenge to classification)