United States v. Private First Class DONALD P. LAVIOLET, ARMY 20190235

PFC Donald P. Laviolet was convicted at a general court-martial and sentenced to reduction, 11 months confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge; he served confinement at Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston.
During his confinement, Lance Corporal BF (a brig guard) engaged in sexually charged talk, flirtation (smiles, winks, heart signs), shared contact information, and repeatedly selected Laviolet for post-meal frisk searches.
Laviolet later alleged LCPL BF watched him shower and during frisks grabbed his legs and "cupped" his genitals; LCPL BF admitted many inappropriate communications and preferential frisking but denied shower-watching and intentional touching.
An investigation in September 2019 led to LCPL BF's removal from prisoner duties; Laviolet submitted a November 2019 declaration with additional allegations and raised an Eighth Amendment/Article 55 claim on appeal (but not in his post-trial submission to the convening authority).
The Army Court reviewed extra-record materials, considered whether a remand/evidentiary hearing was required, analyzed exhaustion of administrative remedies, and evaluated whether the conduct rose to cruel and unusual punishment.
The court concluded LCPL BF's conduct, though inappropriate and harassing, did not meet the Eighth Amendment/Article 55 threshold and affirmed the findings and sentence.

Issue	Laviolet's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Need for post-trial evidentiary hearing	Factual disputes about shower-watching and touching require a hearing	Court may decide because even if Laviolet's facts true they wouldn't warrant relief	No remand; facts assumed but insufficient for relief
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Fear of reprisal prevented Laviolet from filing facility grievances	Laviolet did not exhaust and cites no unusual/egregious circumstances	Laviolet failed to exhaust; no relief on that basis
Objective seriousness under Eighth Amendment	Repeated sexualized conduct, shower-watching, and genitals "cupping" are sufficiently serious	Conduct is inappropriate but less severe than established Eighth Amendment violations; legitimate penological interests exist	Not sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment
Subjective deliberate indifference	LCPL BF's persistent conduct shows culpable state of mind	No evidence LCPL BF or officials knew of a risk and acted with deliberate indifference; conduct not malicious/sadistic	No evidence of deliberate indifference; subjective prong not met

United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (standards for remanding for a post-trial evidentiary hearing)
United States v. White, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (court need not remand when alleged facts, even if true, would not entitle appellant to relief)
United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before judicial relief absent unusual circumstances)
United States v. Bright, 63 M.J. 683 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (importance of exhaustion to resolve grievances at lowest level)
United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (articulating objective and subjective Eighth Amendment inquiry relying on Farmer)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment claims)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments involving unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain)
United States v. Brennan, 58 M.J. 351 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (example of severe, malicious mistreatment constituting cruel and unusual punishment)
United States v. Sanchez, 53 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (repeated verbal sexual harassment may be insufficient for an Eighth Amendment violation)
United States v. Kinsch, 54 M.J. 641 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (frisk/searches lawful but may not be conducted to intentionally cause unnecessary physical or mental pain)
United States v. Avila, 53 M.J. 99 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (Eighth Amendment does not require comfortable prisons but prohibits inhumane conditions)