Mason v. SchriroMason v. Schriro
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Laughrey
ORDER
LAUGHREY, District Judge.
On November 3, 1998, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, in part, and denied, in part. The parties were advised they could file written exceptions to the recommendation, pursuant to
In their exceptions, defendants state that the Magistrate Judge erred in his Report because: (i) plaintiffs temporary housing assignment at Fulton Reception, and Diagnostic Center is not an issue in this lawsuit; (ii) plaintiff has failed to show that defendants Schriro, Lombardi, Long and Riley are involved in his claims involving the alleged discriminatory housing policy; (iii) the challenged housing policy was justified because of jail security concerns and the safety and welfare of inmates; (iv) plaintiff could have requested different cell assignments with inmates of other races; (v) plaintiff has presented no evidence that the challenged policy was a pretext for invidious discrimination and therefore fails to state a valid equal protection or conspiracy claim; and (vi)
In his response to exceptions, plaintiff requests that the district court “affirm the report and recommendation of November 3, 1998,” and does not object to any of the recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. Plaintiff, instead, responds to specific exceptions by the defendants.
Statement of Claims
In support of his claims for damages, plaintiff asserts that defendants violated his equal protection rights while he was temporarily assigned to Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center (FRDC) between May 3 and August 26, 1996. Plaintiff states that defendants used race-based considerations to make housing assignments at FRDC.
1
Plaintiff also alleges that defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights in violation of
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges additional violations of his equal protection rights. Specifically, he alleges that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race because other inmates were assigned to either housing in tents or to permanent population, or were given job assignments, whereas plaintiff was denied these assignments solely because of his race.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the additional claims in the amended complaint. Plaintiff does not oppose the dismissal of these claims. A de novo review of the record convinces the court that the recommendation to dismiss the additional claims in the amended complaint, i.e., the claims that were not asserted in the original complaint, is correct and should be adopted.
Defendants’ Exceptions
(i) Claims relating to Temporary Housing Assignment
Initially, defendants argue that plaintiffs temporary housing assignment at
(ii) Failure to Allege Personal Involvement
Second, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to show how defendants Schriro, Lombardi, and Riley were personally involved in his claims challenging the discriminatory housing policy. Defendants did not raise this argument in the motion for summary judgment. After considering this argument, however, the court agrees that plaintiff has failed to show how defendant Riley, who is the Director of Offender Rehabilitative Services, is involved with the housing assignment policy. The court concludes, however, that plaintiff has sufficiently shown how defendants Schriro and Lombardi are involved in the claims. Defendant Schriro is the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and defendant George Lombardi is the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions. Although defendants Schriro and Lombardi state in their affidavits that they are not responsible for making housing assignments at institutions within the Missouri Department of Corrections, plaintiff could reasonably be inferred to state in the complaint that defendants, as high-level administrators within the Missouri Department of Corrections, failed to properly exercise their administrative and oversight responsibilities by tolerating a housing assignment policy at FRDC that permits prison officials to take race into account when making temporary housing assignments. The court notes that at a recorded conference on November 30, 1998, plaintiff stated, and defendants did not dispute, that the alleged discriminatory housing policy is embodied in Standard Operating Procedure IS5-3.1. (See, e.g., Doc. 81 relating to the discussion at conference.) A response to plaintiffs grievance also provides that the expeditious assignment of inmates based on race, age, and length of sentence is outlined in policy and procedure IS5-3.1. (See exhibits attached to Document 1, Grievance Response by Defendant Goeke.) Accordingly, plaintiff indicates that the challenged policy was embodied in a written Department of Corrections policy and it can reasonably be inferred that defendants Schriro and Lombardi, as high-level administrative officials within the Missouri Department of Corrections, would know of a written policy in the Standard Operating Procedures.
Defendants also state that defendant Long is not responsible for making housing assignments at the Missouri Department of Corrections. However, defendant Long responded to plaintiffs grievance appeal and stated that he thought the challenged housing policy was justified because large numbers of inmates needed to be processed daily and because plaintiff was in temporary housing assignment. Defendant Long defended the challenged housing policy and did not authorize any change in housing assignments when plaintiff filed a grievance appeal. Defendant Long is also a high-ranking official with responsibility similar to those of defendant Lombardi and should remain in the lawsuit for the same reasons set forth regarding Mr. Lombardi. Accordingly, plaintiff has sufficiently shown how defendant Long was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations.
(in) Argument that Plaintiff Failed to Request A Cell Change
Defendants argue that plaintiff could have requested a cell change and has not shown that he did. However, the record indicates that plaintiff filed an informal resolution request (IRR), a grievance and a grievance appeal complaining about the housing assignment. In the grievance response and response to grievance appeal, plaintiff was notified that other kinds of
(iv) Whether Plaintiff has alleged Discriminatory Intent
Defendants also argue that plaintiff has not alleged any facts to show that the race-based housing assignment policy was a pretext for intentional discrimination. The court finds that where a particular governmental policy is race-based, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of a discriminatory intent. The court here is not faced with a situation where there is a neutral governmental policy, fair on its face, resulting in unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike. See, e.g., Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8, 64 S.Ct. 397, 401, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944) (the unlawful administration by state officers of a state statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not the denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination). Here, plaintiff alleges a suspect classification, race, was used as a criterion in the housing assignment policy and, by implication, argues that a policy using a suspect classification is not fair on its face. Defendants do not deny that the policy authorized race to be taken into account as one factor for making housing assignments. Plaintiff satisfies his burden of showing discriminatory intent when he alleges that the policy takes race into account.
The Equal Protection Clause provides that “[n]o state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race “are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1385, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943). Accord, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967). They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 at 493, 109 S.Ct. 706 at 721, 102 L.Ed.2d 854.
Defendants appear to argue that in the instant case there is no showing of discriminatory intent , because the challenged policy was designed to apply to all racial groups equally. Defendants do not deny, however, that the challenged policy uses an express racial classification. In
Loving,
the State of Virginia argued that its anti-miscegenation statutes did not violate constitutional prohibitions against racial classifications because the statutes affected racial groups equally. The Supreme Court held that the fact of equal application does
It is well established that a state may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities, Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61, 83 S.Ct. 1053, 10 L.Ed.2d 195 (1963), and the principle is as applicable to prisons as to other public facilities. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). Defendants do not dispute that at the time plaintiff was at FRDC, race was one criterion used to make housing assignments for inmates in temporary custody. Where a challenged classification affects a suspect class such as race, strict scrutiny review applies. Under that standard, a classification is upheld only if it is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Stiles v. Blunt, 912 F.2d 260, 263 (8th Cir.1990.) Defendants are required to show that the use of race as one of three primary factors for making housing assignments serves a compelling state interest.
The court determines that plaintiff was not required to make an additional showing of intentional discrimination where he has shown that the challenged policy uses race as one of three primary factors for making housing assignments.
(v) Whether the Challenged Policy is Justified because it serves Security Concerns
Defendants also argue in their exceptions that the housing assignment policy in question is constitutional because FRDC is not a typical institution within the Department of Corrections and on any given day it is necessary to make well over 200 cell assignments or changes. Defendants argue that the safety and security of the institution demand that assignments be made quickly. Defendants suggest that where there is little time to question inmates about their individual preferences, race is an indicator of compatibility.
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that defendants have not sufficiently shown that using race as a criterion for making housing assignments serves a compelling state interest. In
Cruz v. Beto,
405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972), the Supreme Court held that racial segregation, which is unconstitutional outside prisons, is unconstitutional within prisons save for the necessities of prison security and discipline. In
Lee v. Washington,
390 U.S. 333, 334, 88 S.Ct. 994, 995, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 (1968), Justice Black stated in his concurring opinion that prison officials have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline and good order.
Id.
The security and discipline exception has been interpreted by some courts to ban racial segregation in cell assignments except in circumstances where racial tensions are documented or where differential treatment is necessary. In
United States v. Wyandotte County,
480 F.2d 969, 971 (10th Cir.1973), the appeals court struck down racial segregation in cell assignments where racial tensions were not documented and the facts did not indicate an unusual situation in which security and discipline demanded segregation.
See also Mickens v. Winston,
462 F.Supp. 910, 912 (E.D.Va.1978),
affirmed,
609 F.2d 508 (4th Cir.1979).
But see Ramirez v. Reagan,
82 F.3d 423, Table, Text in Westlaw 1996 WL 166203 (9th Cir.1996) (interpreting security and discipline exception in less stringent manner in light of
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)). The court finds that defendants have not provided any specific evidence of the security dangers that are implicated if inmates of different races are housed together at Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center. Defendants have also not provided any evidence to show that security dangers are alleviated by making same-race housing assignments. Accordingly, the court does not find that defendants have sufficiently shown that prison
(vi)
Applicability of
The court will now consider whether
Title
No federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.
Whether
(a)
Contexts in which Courts have applied
In
Clarke v. Stalder,
121 F.3d 222, 227 n. 8 (5th Cir.1997),
opinion reinstated in part on rehearing
in 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.1998), the Fifth Circuit suggested in dictum, that
Numerous district courts have applied
A review of cases from other courts indicates that the statutory section is most frequently applied where plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions have caused him to fear physical injury and fear for his safety and welfare, but he fails to show any physical injury. See, e.g., Hill v. Plummer, 1998 WL 305517 (N.D.Cal.1998) (fear of shock from electronic restraining device); Singleton v. Alameda County, 1998 WL 754593 (N.D.Cal.1998) (deliberate infliction of psychological harm); Luong v. Hatt, 979 F.Supp. 481 (N.D.Tex.1997) (failure to protect from assault by other inmates); Flannery v. Wagner, 1998 WL 709762 (D.Kan.1998) (deliberate indifference to safety and welfare of inmate); and Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F.Supp. 1318 (S.D.Ind.1997) (infliction of emotional injury as a result of exposure to asbestos).
Some district courts have expressly refused to apply
Accordingly, courts have had difficulty in determining the precise scope of
The . . . issue is whether the Eighth Amendment requires that damages for psychological harm be available as a remedy against those persons acting under color of state law who inflict such harm .... [S]uch a damages remedy cannot be constitutionally required in all cases .... There is a point beyond which Congress may not restrict the availability of judicial remedies for the violations of constitutional rights without in essence taking away the rights themselves by rendering them utterly hollow promises. That point has not been reached by enactment of§ 1997e(e) as applied here.
Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F.Supp. 1318, 1331 (S.D.Ind.1997).
The caselaw, therefore, indicates that the courts have not agreed on the precise scope of
The starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. United States v. Sosa, 997 F.2d 1130, 1132 (5th Cir.1993). If the language is clear and unambiguous, then the court may end its inquiry. Id. at 1132. If, however, a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, then the reviewing court must look beyond the language of the statute in an effort to ascertain the intent of the legislative body. Carpenters Dist. Council v. Dillard Dept. Stores, 15 F.3d 1275, 1282 (5th Cir.1994). A statute can be considered ambiguous when a particular interpretation from the face of a statute could lead to an anomalous, unusual or absurd result. Breedlove v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc., 140 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir.1998). Federal statutes are to be construed so as to avoid serious doubts as to their constitutionality, and when faced with such doubts the court will first determine whether it is facially possible to interpret the statute in a manner that renders it constitutionally valid. Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 101 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988).
In the instant case,
The phrase “for mental or emotional injury” can also be construed more narrowly to mean “for
[inflictions of]
mental or emotional injury
[where the infliction of mental or emotional distress is alleged to constitute the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights
].” Under this construction of
The narrow construction of
(c) Legislative History
The phrase “for mental or emotional injury” is susceptible to two interpretations and it is, therefore, necessary to look to legislative history for guidance. A statute can be considered ambiguous when a particular interpretation from the face of a statute could lead to an anomalous, unusual or absurd result.
Breedlove v. Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc.,
140 F.3d 797, 800 (8th Cir.1998). Statutes
Where the statutory language is not entirely clear, the courts look for guidance from many sources, including legislative history, the broader purposes of the legislation at issue, as well as common sense and the practical implications of the alternative, Zehner v. Trigg, 952 F.Supp. 1318, 1324-25 (S.D.Ind.1997).
The legislative history contains very little specific discussion of
Accordingly, the legislative history indicates that Congress was concerned about frivolous lawsuits by inmates arising from their conditions of confinement — frivolous complaints about such prison conditions as the quality of prison food, prison amenities and‘physical facilities. There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to dramatically limit available judicial remedies for such historically actionable claims as Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and First Amendment free exercise claims. Given the overall purpose of the PLRA to curb frivolous lawsuits, and the legislative history showing that allegations of prison legislation abuses were focused primarily on conditions of confinement, it does not appear that Congress intended to give a broad grant of immunity to prison officials in situations where inmates are able to establish blatant racial or religious discrimination. For example, if minority inmates were systematically assigned to poorer facilities, or had far fewer amenities or were afforded poorer educational opportunities than white inmates, or if members of a non-Christian religion, in contrast to members of a Christian religion, were systematically denied any opportunity to practice their religion, it is highly unlikely that Congress would have intended
If the court were to interpret
The court is mindful of the doctrine that “where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.”
Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.,
508 U.S. 602, 628-29, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 2282-83, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993). If the court were to construe
The court will not adopt an interpretation that gives rise to serious constitutional problems and will adopt a narrower interpretation of
The court notes, additionally, that the legislative history shows Congress was concerned about curbing frivolous lawsuits. Under the provisions of
For the reasons discussed above, the court determines that the provisions of
(vii)
Whether
Even if
In their exceptions, defendants argue that the PLRA makes no exception for nominal damages and that plaintiff moreover does not seek nominal damages for violation of a constitutional right in this case. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
By making the deprivation of such rights actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, the law recognizes the importance to organized society that those rights be scrupulously observed; but at the same time, it remains true to the principle that substantial damages should be awarded only to compensate actual injury or, in the case of exemplary or punitive damages, should be awarded only to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 at 266, 98 S.Ct. 1042 at 1053-54, 55 L.Ed.2d 252.
In
Davis v. District of Columbia,
158 F.3d 1342 (D.C.Cir.1998), the appeals court recently considered whether
Defendants argue that plaintiff did not request nominal damages in either his original or amended complaints. However, as plaintiff states in his response to defendants’ exceptions, he did include a request for nominal damages for violation of a constitutionally protected right in Document 23. Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and
(viii) Whether Plaintiff is Required, to Provide Proof of Actual Injury at Summary Judgment Stage
One final issue remains. In his November 3, 1998, report, the Magistrate Judge asserted that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs request for
compensatory
damages for mental and emotional injury because plaintiff had not provided any evidence of his
actual injury
through verified affidavits, deposition testimony or any other documents. The Magistrate Judge determined that plaintiffs equal protection claim was actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury, but determined that plaintiff was precluded from proceeding on his claims for compensatory damages because he had not come forward, at the summary judgment stage, with any evidence of the actual injury he suffered. Accordingly, the issue is this: Assuming that
Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Accordingly, the court must consider whether plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his equal protection claim. To establish a prima facie violation of the Equal Protection Clause, plaintiff must show that he is a member of a class who is similarly situated to members of another class and was treated differently from members of the other class. See, e.g., Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz, 567 F.2d 1368, 1374 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 841, 99 S.Ct. 132, 58 L.Ed.2d 140 (1978). Plaintiff must also show unlawful, purposeful discrimination. Batra v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska, 79 F.3d 717, 722 (8th Cir.1996). Where the government treats similarly situated people differently based on suspect classifications such as race, nationality, or alienage, such action is subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if it is suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192, 85 S.Ct. 283, 288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971).
In the instant case, plaintiff has made a showing sufficient to satisfy the essential elements of his equal protection claim. He has come forward with evidence to show that he was treated differently with respect to a housing assignment based on his membership in a particular race. By showing that the housing policy included an express racial classification, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of an unlawful intent to discriminate. Defen
Accordingly, the district court determines that plaintiffs failure to come forward at this stage with any evidence of actual injury does not entitle defendants to a grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs claims or compensatory damages.
Finally, the court has reviewed the analysis in the November 3, 1998, Report and Recommendation with respect to plaintiffs conspiracy claim and finds no error in the analysis.
A de novo review of the record, 3 including the exceptions filed by defendants on November 3, 1998, and the response to exceptions filed by plaintiff on November 30, 1998, convinces the court that the recommendation of the Magistrate judge is correct in all respects except two. The court determines that plaintiffs claims against defendant Riley should be dismissed for reasons stated in this order. The court also determines, for reasons stated in this order, that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs claims for compensatory damages.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, in part, on plaintiffs equal protection claims involving assignments to tent areas and permanent population and inmate job assignments at FRDC and on plaintiffs claims against defendant Riley [56]. It is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied, in part, on plaintiffs claim alleging race-based housing assignments for inmates in temporary custody at FRDC and alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights [56].
Notes
. In their exceptions, defendants state that FRDC officials no longer consider race as a factor in making initial housing assignments for temporary inmates. (Doc. 72, p. 2 n. 3.)
. The court notes that plaintiff‘s claims arose from incidents that occurred after the passage of the PLRA. Accordingly, no issues arise relating to the retroactive application of
. Court proceedings, if any, are recorded by electronic recording equipment and the tapes are available for review by the court and counsel.