United States v. Leonard
201600191
| N.M.C.C.A. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Appellant, a sailor aboard USS FRANK CABLE, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to two specifications of assault consummated by battery under Article 128, UCMJ; sentence included confinement, reduction to E‑1, forfeitures, and a bad-conduct discharge; CA approved the sentence.
- After confinement at the Joint Region Marianas Confinement Facility (an Air Force‑run brig on Guam), defense counsel submitted clemency alleging "de facto" solitary confinement and denial of medical care (post‑op occupational therapy) constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
- The CA’s SJA responded, explaining Guam’s limited confinement resources and describing steps taken to provide medical care; defense renewed the allegations before CA action.
- Appellant did not file any confinement‑facility grievances, petition under Article 138, UCMJ, or submit an affidavit describing exhaustion of remedies; record contains only the clemency submissions to the CA.
- Appellant sought either disapproval of the punitive discharge or, alternatively, a DuBay hearing to resolve factual disputes about confinement conditions and exhaustion of remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confinement conditions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under Article 55/U.S. Const. Amend. VIII | Conditions (de facto solitary, denial of therapy) violated Eighth Amendment/Article 55 | No record evidence of deliberate indifference; CA/brig not shown to have authority or culpability; SJA explained medical care provided | Court rejected claim on record—no relief because appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Whether appellant exhausted prison grievance procedures and Article 138 remedies (Coffey requirement) | Exhaustion was not required because circumstances were egregious; clemency submissions to CA sufficed | Appellant did not use facility grievance system or Article 138; CA lacks control over brig; Coffey requires exhaustion absent unusual circumstances | Court held appellant failed to prove exhaustion and did not show unusual/egregious circumstances to excuse it |
| Whether a DuBay hearing is warranted to resolve factual disputes about confinement conditions and exhaustion | Appellant asked remand for DuBay hearing to develop facts on conditions and exhaustion | No affidavit or conflicting factual assertions in the record; Ginn/Fagan DuBay framework applies only to affidavit‑based conflicts | Court denied DuBay remand because there are no conflicting facts or affidavits that a DuBay hearing would resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. United States, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F.) (exhaustion requirement; CA clemency petition alone does not satisfy Coffey)
- Lovett v. United States, 63 M.J. 211 (C.A.A.F.) (apply Eighth Amendment standards to UCMJ claims absent contrary legislative intent)
- Coffey v. United States, 38 M.J. 290 (C.M.A.) (prisoner must exhaust facility grievance system and Article 138 before appellate relief)
- Miller v. United States, 46 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F.) (exhaustion requirement ensures adequate administrative record)
- Ginn v. United States, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.) (DuBay hearing framework for affidavit‑based post‑trial claims)
- Fagan v. United States, 59 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F.) (extension of Ginn framework to post‑trial cruel and unusual punishment claims)
- DuBay v. United States, 37 C.M.R. 411 (C.M.A.) (establishing procedure for post‑trial fact‑finding hearings)