427 F. App'x 437
6th Cir.2011Background
- Evans, a prisoner, was placed in administrative segregation for nine days after a positive stick test, challenging its validity.
- Sublett, DeBow, and Evans were initially plaintiffs; Evans remains as the sole plaintiff.
- May 17, 2005: Sublett’s field urine test is deemed positive, triggering segregation before lab confirmation.
- May 19, 2005: Evans and DeBow receive stick tests; Evans is placed in 7 Cellhouse Admin. Seg. for investigation.
- May 26–27, 2005: Aegis reviews test results; later labs are negative; Evans and DeBow are released after nine days.
- Evans later alleges ongoing testing under a random policy, with additional testing incidents in 2005 and 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans had a protected liberty interest in avoiding segregation | Evans argues segregation imposed atypical hardship. | Defendants contend no liberty interest existed in temporary segregation. | No actionable liberty interest shown; summary judgment upheld on this claim. |
| Whether the May 19 drug test and related search violated the Fourth Amendment | Testing may have lacked proper adherence to random-testing policy. | Testing aligned with policy or reasonable search standards. | Genuine issue of material fact about adherence to the random-testing policy; reversal of summary judgment on Fourth Amendment claim. |
| Whether the May 2005 search and related strip procedures violated the Eighth Amendment | Strip search, haircut, and shave were cruel or unusual | Procedures were not a serious deprivation or excessive force | No Eighth Amendment violation found; affirmed on this claim. |
| Whether Evans’ retaliation claim against assisting Sublett is viable | Retaliation linked to protected conduct (assisting Sublett) | No causal link or protected conduct shown | Viable retaliation claim; remanded to permit amendment and evidence. |
| Whether Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established; defendants violated them | Not adequately argued; qualified immunity not adequately addressed | Qualified immunity waived; merits proceed on the constitutional claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) ( liberty interest arising from state policies; atypical confinement standard)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) ( no liberty interest in prison conditions unless atypical and significant hardship)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1991) ( deprivation must be the minimal civilized necessities; conditions focus)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) ( elements of retaliation claims; protected conduct, adverse action, causal link)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) ( cruel and unusual punishment standard for Eighth Amendment)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) ( core standard for excessive force; de minimis force not a violation)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) ( searches of prisoners; reasonableness standard)
- Nix v. United States, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) ( inevitable discovery caveat; exclusionary rule relevance)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) ( prison policies and deference to corrections authority)
- Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1993) ( access-to-courts right; jailhouse lawyers)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1981) ( punitive or punitive-like confinement; applicable to conditions)