Vega v. Semple
963 F.3d 259
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former inmates (putative class) of Garner Correctional Institution who allege involuntary exposure to hazardous indoor radon since the prison opened in 1992.
- Radon is a known carcinogen; Newtown, CT (site of Garner) is a high-radon zone and EPA/WHO set action levels recommending mitigation.
- Plaintiffs allege DOC officials knowingly chose a high-risk site, failed to test or mitigate for decades, concealed test results from inmates, and that a 2014 mitigation system was limited to tested areas (classrooms) and did not address the cellblocks.
- Limited radon testing (2013–2014) found levels up to 23.7 pCi/L; remediation work on tested areas was completed in October 2014.
- Procedural posture: District Court dismissed claims based on qualified immunity for conduct before Helling (1993), denied qualified immunity for post-Helling conduct, and denied sovereign-immunity dismissal of federal prospective relief. Defendants appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity for post-1993 alleged conduct, allowed federal prospective relief claims under Ex parte Young, but held Pennhurst bars federal injunctive relief based on state law and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged deliberate indifference to inmates’ radon exposure | Helling established that exposure to toxic environmental substances creating an unreasonable future-health risk violates the Eighth Amendment; that principle applies to radon, so officials had fair warning after 1993 | No binding precedent specifically about radon to deny immunity; qualified immunity should apply absent precise prior case on this carcinogen | Denied for post-Helling conduct: Helling and related authority gave reasonable officials fair warning in 1993 that deliberate indifference to radon could be unconstitutional; immunity not available for alleged post-1993 and for the alleged post-2014 conscious failure to remediate cellblocks |
| Whether Helling (ETS) extends to radon exposure | Helling’s rule — inmates need not wait to get sick to challenge toxic exposures — applies and is even clearer for a recognized carcinogen like radon | ETS and radon are different; absence of exact precedent on radon favors defendants | Held that Helling’s precedent and statutory/agency recognition of radon made the right clearly established as of 1993; radon exposure falls within Helling’s principle |
| Whether Plaintiffs may obtain prospective federal relief (testing, mitigation, medical monitoring) against state officials despite Eleventh Amendment | Ex parte Young permits prospective equitable relief against state officers to stop ongoing federal-law violations; Plaintiffs allege ongoing constitutional violations justifying injunctive relief | Eleventh Amendment bars suit; requested medical monitoring is really retrospective damages disguised as injunctive relief; new DOC policies may moot relief | Denied sovereign-immunity dismissal for federal prospective claims under Ex parte Young (ongoing violation alleged); relief cannot be awarded for former inmates not currently in custody (no ongoing violation for them); scope of relief to be determined after discovery/remand |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ state-law prospective claims may proceed in federal court | State-law standards are cited to support federal claims and Plaintiffs also assert Connecticut constitutional/state-law claims for injunctive relief | Pennhurst bars federal courts from enjoining state officials on the basis of state law | Pennhurst controls: federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant prospective relief based on state-law claims; District Court erred to the extent it denied dismissal of state-law injunctive claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (Eighth Amendment claim permitted for exposure to toxic environmental substance posing unreasonable future-health risk)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective equitable relief against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (federal courts may not enjoin state officials on the basis of state law)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (officials can be on notice that conduct is unlawful even in novel factual settings)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity framework: clearly established law requirement)
- Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015) (limits on identifying clearly established rights; distinguishes failure-to-act claims from inadequate-implementation claims)
- LaBounty v. Coughlin, 137 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1998) (Second Circuit precedent recognizing Eighth Amendment protection from exposure to hazardous substances)
- Warren v. Keane, 196 F.3d 330 (2d Cir. 1999) (post-Helling recognition that exposure to ETS could violate clearly established law)