Filed: Apr. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: BLD-144 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-1078 _ DAVID STEVENSON; MICHAEL MANLEY; MICHAEL L. JONES, Appellants v. WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00139) District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 22, 2012 Before: SCI
Summary: BLD-144 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-1078 _ DAVID STEVENSON; MICHAEL MANLEY; MICHAEL L. JONES, Appellants v. WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00139) District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 22, 2012 Before: SCIR..
More
BLD-144 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1078
___________
DAVID STEVENSON;
MICHAEL MANLEY;
MICHAEL L. JONES,
Appellants
v.
WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-00139)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 22, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 6, 2012 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
David Stevenson, Michael Manley, and Michael L. Jones (collectively
“plaintiffs”), all pro se inmates, appeal from the order of the District Court granting
1
summary judgment to defendant Warden Thomas Carroll. We will summarily affirm.
See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2004. At that
time, they were detainees at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (“VCC”), Smyrna,
Delaware, and were then housed in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). They asserted
that their placement in the SHU violated their substantive and procedural due process
rights, and they sought return to the general prison population, monetary damages, and
the establishment of a system of review for transfers of pretrial detainees into the SHU.
The District Court dismissed the case pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and we
reversed on appeal. Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62, 64-65 (3d Cir. 2007).
The following is taken from our precedential opinion:
At the time of their complaint, Stevenson and Manley were awaiting resentencing.
Both had been convicted and sentenced to death in January 1997, but their
sentences were vacated and remanded on or about May 30, 2001. At that time,
they were moved off death row, and into the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”).
Stevenson was moved from the SHU to a less restrictive pre-trial facility in
December 2003, but was returned to the SHU in January 2004. Neither one of
them received a hearing or explanation for their transfers into the SHU. They were
both subsequently re-sentenced to death on February 3, 2006.
Jones was awaiting trial at the time of the complaint. Following a disruption at
Gander Hill Prison in Wilmington, Delaware, he and several other inmates were
moved to the SHU on or about February 19, 2003. Jones asserts that, like
Stevenson and Manley, he was not afforded an explanation or hearing regarding
his transfer into more restrictive housing. He does, however, state that he was
alleged to have been involved in the riot at Gander Hill. Jones was subsequently
found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on
September 16, 2005.
Stevenson, 495 F.3d at 64-65.
2
Following remand, Carroll moved for summary judgment. By then, Stevenson
and Manley had been moved to death row, and Jones was in the area of the SHU reserved
for sentenced inmates.
After discovery, the District Court expanded on the facts. In June 2001,
Stevenson’s lawyer wrote to then-Warden Snyder inquiring about the reason for his
placement in the SHU. In January 2002, Stevenson was informed that his move was
based on his pending penalty phase retrial and on disorderly threatening behavior and
inmate demonstration. His placement was reviewed in January 2003; later that month,
the Institutional Base Classification Committee (“IBCC”) approved the recommendation
to house him in the SHU pending resentencing based on his risk assessment score and his
open first-degree murder charge. Stevenson received notice of the decision; he also
received two written responses from his counselor in 2003 regarding his placement.1
Like Stevenson, Manley was notified in January 2002 that his move to the SHU
following the reversal of his death sentence was based on his pending penalty phase
retrial. His placement was reviewed in January 2003; the IBCC approved the
recommendation to house him in the SHU pending resentencing based on his risk
assessment score and his open first-degree murder charge. Manley received notice of the
decision; he also received written responses from two different counselors in 2003
regarding his placement.2
1
Stevenson received several disciplinary reports between 2001 and 2004.
2
Manley received several disciplinary reports between 2002 and 2004.)
3
Carroll wrote a memorandum to the Chief of the Delaware Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) in June 2003 regarding Stevenson’s and Manley’s complaints. In it, Carroll
noted that both inmates were awaiting resentencing after having death sentences
overturned, both were held without bail, and both were viewed as security risks in the
general population.
While awaiting trial at a different institution, Jones was involved in an incident
with other inmates in which they tried to harm a fellow inmate. As a result, the BOP
transferred Jones to the SHU pretrial unit at VCC. Jones wrote letters to a counselor, the
Deputy Warden, Carroll, the DOC Commissioner, and the Governor of Delaware
complaining about his transfer and stating that he had not received notice of charges and
had not been given an opportunity to respond. Jones received a number of disciplinary
reports between 2002 and 2005. In 2005, he was convicted of three counts of first-degree
murder and sentenced to three life sentences without the possibility of parole.
According to Carroll and other prison officials, the main reason for Stevenson’s
and Manley’s placement in the SHU was the fact that they were facing possible death
sentences. The prison also considered the fact that they had murdered a state’s witness,
and believed that the crime foreshadowed future similar conduct. The prison determined
that they presented a significant risk if housed in the general population. Jones was
placed in the SHU because of his serious pending charges (three counts of first degree
murder) and because of his significant disciplinary record.
4
The District Court considered Stevenson’s and Jones’ responses3 before granting
the summary judgment motion. The court first found that plaintiffs had not exhausted
their administrative remedies, and that Carroll was entitled to protection from official-
capacity claims for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court
also found for Carroll on the merits of both the substantive and procedural due process
claims. Finally, the court also held that even if the plaintiffs’ claims should have
survived summary judgment on the merits, Carroll was entitled to qualified immunity. 4
Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In reviewing a District Court’s
grant of summary judgment, we apply the same test the District Court applied. Saldana
v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is proper when,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all
inferences in that party's favor, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Id. at 232; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of the . . . pleading,” but “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
3
Manley did not file a response.
4
Because we have concluded that plaintiffs’ claims are either moot or barred by
the Eleventh Amendment or qualified immunity, we need not address the exhaustion
issue or the merits of the due process claim.
5
genuine issue for trial.” Saldana, 260 F.3d at 232 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574 (1986)).
III.
A. Money Damages
We agree with the District Court that plaintiffs’ claims against Carroll in his
official capacity are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. Barring consent, a state or
one of its agencies is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.
See Kimmel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73 (2000). Additionally, the Eleventh
Amendment bars a suit for monetary damages against state officials sued in their official
capacities. See Melo v. Hafer,
912 F.2d 628, 635 (3d Cir. 1990).
We also agree with the District Court that qualified immunity shields Carroll in his
individual capacity from monetary damages. Qualified immunity shields government
officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The inquiry, then, includes
two parts: (1) whether the plaintiff demonstrated the deprivation of a constitutional right,
and (2) whether the right was established at the time of the alleged deprivation. See
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011). Circumstances in a particular case
determine which part of the test is applied first. See Pearson v. Callahan,
555 U.S. 223,
236-37 (2009). The District Court held in the alternative that even if the plaintiffs met
the first prong of the test, the constitutional rights at issue were not clearly established.
We will follow that approach here.
6
Prior to our ruling in Stevenson, there existed no precedent speaking to the issue
of housing detainees facing capital sentencing in the SHU. We noted that a sentenced
inmate could “conceivably be held in administrative custody merely because his prior
crimes reasonably foreshadow future misconduct.” Stevenson, 495 F.3d at 70, 71
(quoting Shoats v. Horn,
213 F.3d 140, 146 (3d Cir. 2000)). We concluded that pretrial
administrative detention in the SHU required only an “informal nonadversary review”
that “need not be extensive,” so long as a detainee received an explanation for his transfer
to the SHU and an opportunity to respond.
Stevenson, 495 F.3d at 70, 71. As noted
above, plaintiffs received both notice and an opportunity to respond, though not a formal
hearing. We agree with the District Court that it was reasonable for Carroll to believe
that that was all that was required, given Shoats, and considering the finite length of time
plaintiffs were housed in the SHU and the prison’s security concerns.
B. Other Relief
“The requirement that a case or controversy be actual and ongoing extends
throughout all stages of federal judicial proceedings, including appellate review.”
Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 240-41 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation omitted).
Given that the plaintiffs are no longer pretrial detainees, the District Court properly
determined that their request for injunctive relief—in the form of a transfer from the
SHU—was moot.
Additionally, plaintiffs’ request for the establishment of a system of review for
transfers of pretrial detainees into the SHU is also moot. Plaintiffs’ requests do not fall
into the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine.
7
Under that doctrine, a court could exercise its jurisdiction and consider the merits of an
otherwise moot case if “(1) the challenged action is, in its duration, too short to be fully
litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the
same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Id. at 241. Even
assuming, arguendo, that plaintiffs’ challenge to their pretrial SHU placement could not
be fully litigated prior to their sentencing, there is no indication anywhere in the record
that any of the plaintiffs are currently challenging their sentences, such that they are
reasonably likely to find themselves again awaiting resentencing.
IV.
Because the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
8
