4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 1
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In June 2015, inmate Thomas Barndt filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against 14 prison employees alleging Eighth, Fourteenth, and Fourth Amendment violations arising from: conversion of a family contact visit to non-contact; 28-day denial of outdoor exercise and showers while in the Special Needs Unit; placement in a psychiatric observation cell without prior psychiatrist review; confiscation of two photos of his grandson as contraband and issuance (then dismissal) of a misconduct; and confiscation of his soup.
- Several defendants moved to dismiss; the District Court granted dismissal for some defendants (lack of personal involvement and other grounds) but left others. Barndt proceeded against nine defendants on summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants and denied Barndt’s motion to alter the judgment; Barndt appealed and was proceeding in forma pauperis.
- The Third Circuit exercised plenary review of summary judgment and considered whether Barndt produced evidence creating genuine disputes of material fact as to equal protection, Eighth Amendment conditions claims, Fourth Amendment/search-and-seizure, and due-process claims relating to property deprivation.
- The Court concluded: (1) no class-of-one equal protection claim because Barndt failed to identify similarly situated inmates and there was a rational basis (a file notation restricting contact with minors); (2) the 28-day denial of exercise and showers did not satisfy the Eighth Amendment objective and deliberate-indifference standards; (3) the Fourth Amendment does not apply to prison cell searches/seizures and available post-deprivation remedies satisfied due process; and (4) summary affirmance was appropriate and appointment of counsel was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of contact visit to non-contact (Equal Protection / "class of one") | Barndt: visit revoked because of association with Jamaican prisoners; treated differently without rational basis | Defendants: conversion based on notation in Barndt’s file prohibiting contact with minors (rational basis) | Dismissed: Barndt failed to identify similarly situated inmates and defendants had a rational basis for action |
| Denial of out-of-cell exercise for 28 days (Eighth Amendment) | Barndt: 28-day deprivation of outdoor exercise was cruel and unusual | Defendants: temporary restriction, cell space available for exercise; no ill effects shown | Summary judgment for defendants: 28 days not a substantial deprivation; no evidence of ill effects or deliberate indifference |
| Denial of showers for 28 days (Eighth Amendment) | Barndt: lack of showers violated Eighth Amendment | Defendants: prisoner had sink/running water and other means to clean; temporary denial only | Summary judgment for defendants: temporary shower denial not cruel and unusual; no ill effects shown |
| Confiscation of photos and soup; misconduct and continued characterization of photos as contraband (Fourth/Due Process) | Barndt: photos seized as contraband, misconduct issued, photos not returned; continued characterization harmed him | Defendants: Fourth Amendment not applicable to prison cell searches/seizures; post-deprivation grievance remedies available | Summary judgment for defendants: Fourth Amendment inapplicable; available post-deprivation remedies satisfy due process; no actionable claim shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (class-of-one equal protection)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference, Eighth Amendment)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (conditions of confinement vs. punishment)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (Fourth Amendment inapplicability to prison cells; post-deprivation process)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (prison officials’ discretion to restrict contact visits)