ford v. bender, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Ford v. Bender, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/31

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 1622 12- 2142

ALBERT FORD,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

J AMES BENDER AND PETER ST. AMAND,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. J udi t h G. Dei n, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef or eLynch, Chi ef J udge,

Sel ya and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

Nancy Anker s Whi t e, Speci al Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t hwhomWi l l i amD. Sal t zman, Counsel , Depar t ment of Cor r ect i on, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Li sa J . Pi r ozzol o, wi t h whom Emi l y R. Schul man, Ti mot hy D.Syret t and Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dor r LLP wer e on br i ef ,

f or appel l ee.

Sept ember 24, 2014


2/31

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. The Supreme Court has made cl ear

t hat a pr et r i al det ai nee enj oys a due pr ocess r i ght t o be f r ee f r om

puni shment . Bel l v. Wol f i sh, 441 U. S. 520, 535 ( 1979) . At t he

same t i me, a st at e has a val i d i nt er est i n pr omot i ng t he secur i t y

of det ent i on f aci l i t i es f or t he saf et y of det ai nees and st af f . I d.

at 540. Thi s case, concer ned wi t h an i ndi vi dual i nmat e,

i l l ust r at es one way i n whi ch t hese t wo i nt er est s mi ght come i nt o

conf l i ct .

Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ee Al ber t For d was hel d i n di sci pl i nar y

segr egat ed conf i nement t hr oughout a per i od of pr et r i al det ent i on

and i nt o a subsequent cr i mi nal sent ence as puni shment f or conduct

t hat had occur r ed whi l e he was i mpr i soned dur i ng a pr i or cr i mi nal

sent ence. The di st r i ct cour t 1 r ul ed t hat For d' s puni t i ve

di sci pl i nar y conf i nement vi ol at ed due pr ocess, and t he cour t al so

l ar gel y deni ed t wo hi gh- r anki ng pr i son of f i ci al s' cl ai ms of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, awardi ng For d part i al money damages and

equi t abl e r el i ef as wel l as at t or neys' f ees and cost s.

We rever se t he deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, and

t heref ore r everse t he award of money damages agai nst t he pr i son

of f i ci al s i n t hei r i ndi vi dual capaci t i es, because we f i nd t hat t he

def endant s di d not vi ol at e For d' s cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght s. We

al so vacat e on moot ness gr ounds t he decl arat or y and i nj unct i ve

1 The par t i es agr eed t o pr oceed bef or e a magi st r at e j udge.See 28 U. S. C. 636( c) ; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 73( b) . We r ef er t hr oughoutt o t he r el evant r ul i ngs as t hose of t he di st r i ct cour t .

-2-


3/31

r el i ef or der ed by t he di st r i ct cour t . We r emand f or t he di st r i ct

cour t t o det er mi ne appr opr i at e at t or neys' f ees and cost s as t o any

equi t abl e r el i ef not moot when i ssued.

I. BACKGROUND

A summary of t he f act s and pr ocedur al backgr ound of t he

case suf f i ces. Gr eat er det ai l i s ampl y pr ovi ded by t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s numer ous opi ni ons. See For d v. Bender ( For d V) , 903 F.

Supp. 2d 90 ( D. Mass. 2012) ; For d v. Bender ( For d I V) , No. 07-

11457, 2012 WL 1378651 ( D. Mass. Apr . 19, 2012) ; For d v. Bender

( For d I I I ) , No. 07- 11457, 2012 WL 262532 ( D. Mass. J an. 27, 2012) ;

Ford v. Bender ( Ford I I ) No. 07- 11457, 2010 WL 4781757 (D. Mass.

Nov. 16, 2010) ; For d v. Cl ar ke ( For d I ) , 746 F. Supp. 2d 273 ( D.

Mass. 2010) .

Factual Background

I n 1992, For d was sent enced i n st at e cour t t o f i f t een t o

t went y- f i ve year s i mpr i sonment i n t he cust ody of t he Massachuset t s

Depart ment of Corr ect i on ( DOC) at t he Massachuset t s Corr ect i onal

I nst i t ut i on at Cedar J unct i on ( MCI - Cedar J unct i on) , a st at e

peni t ent i ar y i n Wal pol e, Massachuset t s. 2 Whi l e ser vi ng hi s

sent ence, For d was r epeat edl y housed i n t he Depar t ment Di sci pl i nar y

Uni t ( DDU) , a segr egat ed maxi mum secur i t y housi ng uni t , f or

of f enses commi t t ed dur i ng conf i nement . These i ncl uded bei ng i n

2 Based on hi s sent ence, For d' s ant i ci pat ed r el ease dat ewoul d have been bet ween 2007 and 2017.

-3-


4/31

possessi on of a weapon, conspi r i ng t o i nt r oduce her oi n, and

conspi r i ng t o assaul t ot her i nmat es.

I n 2002, whi l e housed i n t he DDU, For d vi ol ent l y at t acked

t wo of f i cer s and t ook a nur se host age. The of f i cer s had escor t ed

For d t o a t r i age r oom and adj ust ed hi s handcuf f s t o al l ow hi m t o

t est hi s bl ood sugar and admi ni st er hi s i nsul i n. Whi l e hi s ri ght

hand was un- cuf f ed, For d pr oduced a f our - and- a- hal f i nch shank f r om

hi s cl ot hi ng, st abbed bot h of f i cer s t wi ce, and hel d t he weapon t o

t he nur se' s t hr oat unt i l ot her st af f ar r i ved. One of f i cer r equi r ed

i mmedi ate medi cal at t ent i on f or t he punct ur e wounds i n hi s mi d and

l ower back. I n J anuar y 2003, af t er a f ul l di sci pl i nar y hear i ng,

For d was gi ven t he admi ni st r at i ve sanct i on of a t en- year t er m i n

t he DDU, t he maxi mum DDU sanct i on possi bl e. The hear i ng of f i cer

expl ai ned t hat " I nmat e For d i s a danger t o st af f and hi s cont i nued

pl acement i n t he Depar t ment ' s most secur e set t i ng i s war r ant ed. "

At t hat poi nt , For d had year s l ef t on hi s st at e sent ence of f i f t een

t o t went y- f i ve year s i mpr i sonment .

For d' s 2002 mi sconduct i n pr i son had st at e l aw cr i mi nal

consequences as wel l . I n 2002, he was charged wi t h and i ndi ct ed

f or ar med assaul t wi t h i nt ent t o mur der . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

265, 15B, 18.

For d compl et ed hi s or i gi nal cr i mi nal sent ence on J anuar y

6, 2007, l ess t han t he twent y- f i ve year maxi mum; t he recor d i s

uncl ear as t o why. He r emai ned, however , i n t he cust ody of t he DOC

-4-


5/31

as a pr et r i al det ai nee f or t he new cr i mi nal assaul t wi t h i nt ent t o

mur der charge. See i d. ch. 276, 52A. The Deput y Commi ss i oner of

Cor r ect i on at t he t i me, def endant - appel l ant J ames Bender , made the

deci si on t o keep For d i n t he DDU t o cont i nue servi ng hi s t en- year

sanct i on wi t hout a new hear i ng, despi t e the change i n For d' s s t at us

f r omsent enced i nmat e t o pr et r i al det ai nee. Bender t est i f i ed t hat ,

" [ b] ased on . . . hi s ent i r e hi st or y, my ser i ous concer ns about

saf et y and secur i t y of st af f and i nmat es, I f el t t hat t he most

appr opr i ate pl acement f or hi m at t hat t i me was at DDU. "

I n March 2007, For d was gr ant ed bai l i n t he pendi ng

assaul t case, and he was r el eased f r om t he DOC' s cust ody. On J une

26, 2007, however , t he st at e cour t r evoked hi s bai l based on a

charge t hat he had mai l ed heroi n t o an i nmate. He was r etur ned t o

MCI - Cedar J unct i on. Bender once mor e consi gned For d, st i l l a

pr et r i al det ai nee on t he pendi ng assaul t char ge, t o t he DDU t o

cont i nue ser vi ng t he pr evi ousl y i mposed t en- year sanct i on, wi t hout

any new hear i ng on whether t hat sanct i on shoul d be enf orced.

I n J ul y 2007, For d f i r st pr ot est ed hi s cont i nued

conf i nement i n t he DDU. Def endant - appel l ant Pet er St . Amand, t he

Super i nt endent of MCI - Cedar J unct i on, advi sed For d i n a wr i t t en

communi que t hat he was " proper l y housed i n the DDU servi ng t he

r emai nder of a t en ( 10) year DDU sent ence that [ he] r ecei ved [ i n

2003] . " The communi que f ur t her aver r ed t hat For d' s st at us as a

-5-


6/31

pr et r i al det ai nee di d not bar t he DOC f r om r equi r i ng hi m t o ser ve

out t he pr evi ousl y i mposed di sci pl i nar y sanct i on.

On Apr i l 30, 2008, For d pl ed gui l t y t o t he pendi ng

cr i mi nal char ges of assaul t wi t h i nt ent t o mur der and mai l i ng

her oi n t o an i nmat e. By pl eadi ng gui l t y t o assaul t wi t h i nt ent t o

mur der , For d admi t t ed t o t he same conduct f or whi ch the t en- year

DDU sanct i on had been i mposed. The cour t sentenced Ford t o f our t o

f i ve year s i n pr i son wi t h cr edi t f or t i me ser ved. Bender kept

Ford, now a convi ct ed and sent enced i nmate, i n t he DDU t o ser ve out

t he bal ance of t he t en- year sanct i on. No addi t i onal hear i ng was

hel d af t er For d' s gui l t y pl ea.

Unsur pr i si ngl y, t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat condi t i ons i n

t he DDU are consi derabl y more onerous t han condi t i ons of

conf i nement f or t he gener al popul at i on at MCI - Cedar J unct i on.

Whi l e conf i ned i n t he DDU, an i nmat e i s kept f or t went y- t hr ee hour s

a day i n a cel l measur i ng seven by t wel ve f eet . Each cel l has a

sol i d st eel door wi t h a smal l i nset wi ndow; a nar r ow wi ndow t o t he

out door s; a cement bed, desk, and st ool ; and a t oi l et vi si bl e

t hr ough t he i nset wi ndow. A DDU i nmat e t ypi cal l y l eaves hi s cel l

f or onl y one hour a day t o exer ci se ( f i ve days a week) and t o

shower ( t hr ee days a week) . He i s subj ect t o st r i p sear ches

whenever he ent ers or l eaves hi s cel l . When a DDU i nmat e i s out of

hi s cel l f or any reason, he i s manacl ed and pl aced i n l eg chai ns.

-6-


7/31

DDU i nmat es ar e soci al l y i sol at ed. Each i nmat e r ecei ves

hi s meal s t hr ough a sl ot i n t he st eel door and i s gi ven onl y twent y

mi nut es t o eat . The pr i son l i br ar y i s of f - l i mi t s, al t hough a DDU

i nmat e may r ecei ve l aw books f r om a "book car t , " whi ch r equi r es a

f or mal r equest and t ypi cal l y r esul t s i n a wai t of ei ght days.

Communi cat i on wi t h other i nmates, guards, and t he out si de wor l d i s

sever el y r est r i ct ed: at a maxi mum, f our mont hl y noncont act vi si t s

and f our mont hl y t el ephone cal l s may be ear ned as a pr i vi l ege f or

good behavi or .

Whi l e any pr i soner woul d suf f er under t hese sever e

condi t i ons, For d was par t i cul ar l y unsui t ed t o t hemdue t o hi s Type

I di abet es. For d r equi r ed r egul ar i nsul i n shot s and, whi l e i n t he

DDU, he r ecei ved f ewer shot s t han needed. Thi s shor t f al l r esul t ed

i n bl ood sugar spi kes causi ng headaches, di zzi ness, a r aci ng hear t ,

shakes, and t r emor s. Di abet i c neur opat hy l ed t o bur ni ng, t i ngl i ng,

and numbness i n hi s f eet and ankl es. The l eg i r ons cut hi s ankl es

and the numbness exacer bat ed t hese cuts, whi ch of t en became

i nf ected.

Procedural Background

On J ul y 31, 2007, For d f i l ed a pr o se compl ai nt i n t he

U. S. Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. The cour t

appoi nt ed pr o bono counsel .

I n For d' s second amended compl ai nt , f i l ed on J ul y 11,

2008, he i nvoked 42 U. S. C. 1983, char gi ng DOC of f i ci al s act i ng i n

-7-


8/31

bot h t hei r r epr esent at i ve and per sonal capaci t i es, i ncl udi ng Bender

and St . Amand, wi t h vi ol at i ng hi s subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al due

pr ocess r i ght s. The par t i es l at er f i l ed cr oss- mot i ons f or summar y

j udgment on t he l i abi l i t y i ssues. The di st r i ct cour t r ender ed a

mi xed deci si on. I t r ul ed t hat Bender and St . Amand had vi ol ated

t he pl ai nt i f f ' s subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght s by conf i ni ng hi mi n

t he DDU as a pr et r i al det ai nee, and t hat Bender had vi ol at ed t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s pr ocedur al due pr ocess r i ght s by cont i nui ng t o conf i ne

t he pl ai nt i f f i n t he DDU, bot h as a pr et r i al det ai nee and as a

sent enced i nmate i n 2008, wi t hout a new hear i ng. For d I , 746 F.

Supp. 2d at 288- 96. I n connect i on wi t h t hese r ul i ngs, t he cour t

l ar gel y deni ed the def endant s' quest f or qual i f i ed i mmuni t y,

al t hough t he cour t r ul ed t hat qual i f i ed i mmuni t y pr ot ect ed Bender

f r om i ndi vi dual l i abi l i t y f or t he per i od dur i ng whi ch For d was a

sent enced i nmat e. I d. at 296- 98. Rel yi ng on i t s r ul i ngs i n t he

summary j udgment memorandum, t he cour t ent ered a f ormal decl arat i on

t hat t he def endant s' act i ons wer e unconst i t ut i onal . See For d I I ,

2010 WL 4781757, at *1. The cour t r ej ect ed a number of other

cl ai ms agai nst Bender , St . Amand, and other def endant s.

A t hr ee- day bench t r i al on t he i ssue of damages and

i nj unct i ve r el i ef t ook pl ace on J ul y 25, 26, and 27, 2011. On

J anuar y 27, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t awar ded t he pl ai nt i f f $47, 500

i n money damages agai nst t he def endant s i n t hei r i ndi vi dual

capaci t i es. For d I I I , 2012 WL 262532, at *17- 18. I t al so i ssued

-8-


9/31

equi t abl e r el i ef , r equi r i ng t he def endant s i n t hei r of f i ci al

capaci t i es t o ensur e t he pl ai nt i f f ' s access to t r ansi t i onal

pr ogr ams dur i ng t he remai nder of hi s sent ence and t o deemt he t en-

year di sci pl i nar y sanct i on sat i sf i ed. See i d. at *17.

The pl ai nt i f f , as t he prevai l i ng par t y, see 42 U. S. C.

1988( b) , moved f or at t or neys' f ees and cost s. The def endant s not

onl y opposed t hi s mot i on but al so sought t o vacate t he j udgment .

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on t o vacat e, For d I V, 2012 WL

1378651, at *2, and awar ded t he pl ai nt i f f $258, 000 i n at t or neys'

f ees and $20, 456. 36 i n cost s, For d V, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 104.

II. ANALYSIS

The def endant s f i l ed t wo appeal s, whi ch we consi der

t ogether . The def endant s chal l enge: ( 1) whether t he DOC def endant s

ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on For d' s subst ant i ve and

pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai ms; ( 2) whet her t he Pr i son Li t i gat i on

Ref or m Act ' s ( PLRA) physi cal i nj ur y r equi r ement f or r ecover i ng

damages i s sat i sf i ed; ( 3) whet her t he equi t abl e r el i ef or der ed by

t he di st r i ct cour t i s r ender ed moot by For d' s convi ct i on on t he

assaul t char ge or , al t er nat i vel y, by hi s ul t i mat e r el ease f r om

pr i son; and ( 4) whet her t he awar d of at t or neys' f ees shoul d be

r eversed. Gi ven our hol di ngs on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we need not

addr ess t he def endant s' cont ent i on under t he PLRA. The other

i ssues we t ake up i n t ur n.

-9-


10/31

A. Qualified Immunity

The di st r i ct cour t deci ded t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i ssue

on summary j udgment , hol di ng t hat t he def endant s ar e not ent i t l ed

t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y f or t hei r conduct dur i ng t he per i od t hat For d

was a pr et r i al det ai nee. 3 See Ford I , 746 F. Supp. 2d at 280. We

r evi ew de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of summary j udgment ,

consi der i ng whet her t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw. See Mor el l i v. Webst er , 552 F. 3d 12, 18 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) ; see al so Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) . That st andar d i s unaf f ect ed

where, as here, cr oss- mot i ons f or summary j udgment are i n pl ay.

See Al l i ance of Aut o. Mf r s. v. Gwadosky, 430 F. 3d 30, 34 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) . As wi t h al l det ermi nat i ons made at t he summary j udgment

st age, i n det er mi ni ng whet her qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s appr opr i at e, we

vi ew t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovant . Tol an

v. Cot t on, 134 S. Ct . 1861, 1866 ( 2014) .

Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s a j udge- made doct r i ne desi gned t o

cur t ai l t he l egal l i abi l i t y of publ i c of f i ci al s . See Pagn v.

Cal der n, 448 F. 3d 16, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Al l st at e act or s except

" t he pl ai nl y i ncompet ent [ and] t hose who knowi ngl y vi ol at e t he

3 Whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat For d' s cont i nuedconf i nement i n t he DDU wi t hout a new hear i ng af t er he was convi ct ed

of t he assaul t was al so a vi ol at i on, t he cour t f ound t hat t he l awwas not cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me and t her ef or e gr ant edqual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t hi s cl ai m. For d I , 746 F. Supp. 2d at 298.The def endant s' appeal of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y r ul i ng t her ef or ef ocuses excl usi vel y on whet her def endant s' conf i nement of For d i nt he DDU as a pr et r i al det ai nee was cl ear l y unconst i t ut i onal at t het i me.

-10-


11/31

l aw, " ar e shi el ded f r omi ndi vi dual l i abi l i t y f or damages under t hi s

doct r i ne. Mal l ey v. Br i ggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 ( 1986) .

A t wo- par t f r amework governs whet her a def endant i s

ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. See Hal ey v. Ci t y of Bost on, 657

F. 3d 39, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Fi r st , we i nqui r e whet her t he f act s,

t aken most f avor abl y t o t he par t y opposi ng summar y j udgment , make

out a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on. See Pear son v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S.

223, 232 ( 2009) . Second, we i nqui r e whet her t he vi ol at ed r i ght was

cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me that t he of f endi ng conduct

occur r ed. See i d. The second, " cl ear l y est abl i shed, " st ep i t sel f

encompasses t wo quest i ons: whether t he cont our s of t he r i ght , i n

gener al , wer e suf f i ci ent l y cl ear , and whet her , under t he speci f i c

f act s of t he case, a r easonabl e def endant woul d have underst ood

t hat he was vi ol at i ng t he r i ght . Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d

263, 269 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Feder al cour t s have di scret i on t o bypass t he f i r st st ep

of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y f r amewor k and t o f ocus i nst ead on t he

second st ep. I d. at 269- 70. The def endant s ask us to do so her e.

They st at e t hat t he i ssue bef or e t he cour t i s whet her r easonabl e

pr i son of f i ci al s woul d have under st ood " t hat cont i nui ng a l awf ul

DDU sanct i on dur i ng a subsequent per i od of pr et r i al det ent i on

const i t ut ed i mper mi ssi bl e puni shment pr oscr i bed by Bel l " and t hat

t he "2003 t en- year DDU sanct i on di d not pr ovi de adequate pr ocess

f or [ For d' s] 2007- 2008 pr et r i al DDU pl acement . " We f i nd t hat

-11-


12/31

r easonabl e of f i ci al s i n t he def endant s' shoes woul d not have

under st ood t hat t hei r act i ons vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

const i t ut i onal r i ght s. Si nce t he l aw was not cl ear l y est abl i shed,

t he def endant s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we consi der t he pl ai nt i f f ' s

subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai ms separ at el y. 4 The

r i ght t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess " i mpl i cat es t he essence of st at e

act i on r at her t han i t s modal i t i es. " Amsden v. Mor an, 904 F. 2d 748,

753 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . Thi s r i ght pr ot ects i ndi vi dual s f r om st at e

act i ons t hat ar e "arbi t r ar y and capr i ci ous, " "r un count er t o t he

concept of or der ed l i ber t y, " or "appear shocki ng or vi ol at i ve of

uni ver sal st andar ds of decency. " I d. at 753- 54 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . The hear t l and of t he r i ght t o pr ocedur al due

pr ocess, as t he name i mpl i es, i s a "guar ant ee of f ai r pr ocedur e. "

Zi ner mon v. Bur ch, 494 U. S. 113, 125 ( 1990) . Thi s r i ght assur es

i ndi vi dual s who ar e t hr eat ened wi t h t he depr i vat i on of a

si gni f i cant l i ber t y or pr oper t y i nt er est by t he st at e not i ce and an

opport uni t y t o be hear d " ' at a meani ngf ul t i me and i n a meani ngf ul

manner . ' " Amsden, 904 F. 2d at 753 ( ci t i ng Ar mst r ong v. Manzo, 380

U. S. 545, 552 ( 1965) ) . The mer i t s of t he depr i vat i on i t sel f ar e

4 The pl ai nt i f f f r amed hi s due pr ocess cl ai ms i n t er ms ofboth t he Due Process Cl ause, U. S. Const . amend. XI V, and t hepar al l el pr ovi si ons of t he Massachuset t s Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s.The par t i es have agr eed t hat t he same st andards gover n bot h t hef eder al and st at e cl ai ms. For economy i n exposi t i on, we di scussonl y t he f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai ms.

-12-


13/31

i mmat er i al t o t he pr ocedur al due pr ocess anal ysi s. Car ey v.

Pi phus, 435 U. S. 247, 266 ( 1978) . We di scuss separ atel y t he

subst ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai ms bef or e us t o

determi ne whether For d can make out a vi ol at i on under ei t her of a

r i ght t hat was cl ear l y est abl i shed i n 2007- 2008.

Substantive Due Process

By def i ni t i on, pr et r i al det ai nees have not been convi ct ed

of t he cr i me or cr i mes wi t h whi ch t hey are charged. Consequent l y,

t hey r ecei ve const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons super i or t o t hose af f or ded

sent enced i nmat es. Bel l , 441 U. S. at 535- 36. Chi ef among t hese

di st i nct i ons i s t hat a pr et r i al det ai nee has a subst ant i ve due

pr ocess r i ght t o be f r ee f r om puni shment . See i d. at 534- 35 &

n. 16; Sur pr enant v. Ri vas, 424 F. 3d 5, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

Puni shment i n the pr esent cont ext , however , i s a t er mof

ar t . What i s pr ohi bi t ed i s "puni shment i n t he const i t ut i onal

sense, " not mer e " r est r i ct i ons and condi t i ons accompanyi ng pr et r i al

det ent i on. " Bel l , 441 U. S. at 538. I n Bel l , t he pl ai nt i f f s

chal l enged t hei r gener al condi t i ons of conf i nement , such as t he

pr act i ce of doubl e bunki ng det ai nees and r est r i ct i ve r ul es on

r ecei vi ng packages f r om out si de t he f aci l i t y. The Supr eme Cour t

decl ar ed i n Bel l t hat t he t est of whet her a condi t i on i s i n f act

puni shment i s whet her " t he di sabi l i t y i s i mposed f or t he pur pose of

puni shment . " I d. A puni t i ve pur pose may be demonst r ated t hr ough

ei t her expr essed i nt ent or t hr ough i nf er ence, f or exampl e i f a r ul e

-13-


14/31

or r egul at i on i s di spr opor t i onat e t o, or not r easonabl y r el at ed t o,

a l egi t i mat e, non- puni t i ve goal . I d. at 538- 39; see al so

Sur pr enant , 424 F. 3d at 13.

Her e, t he def endant s have r epeat edl y admi t t ed t hat For d' s

pr et r i al det ent i on i n t he DDU had a puni t i ve pur pose. For exampl e,

Bender acknowl edged f or t hr i ght l y i n t est i mony bef or e t he di st r i ct

cour t t hat hi s deci si on t o conf i ne Ford t o the DDU i n 2007 was

"[ a] bsol ut el y" i nt ended t o puni sh. The pur pose of t he DDU

conf i nement , he decl ar ed, was t o puni sh For d f or t he assaul t f or

whi ch he was awai t i ng t r i al . Si mi l ar l y, St . Amand' s communi que

not ed t hat t he pur pose of For d' s segr egat ed pr et r i al conf i nement

was t o cont i nue servi ng hi s puni t i ve DDU sanct i on. The di st r i ct

cour t r el i ed on t he def endant s pl ai n expr essi ons of puni t i ve

i nt ent t o f i nd t hat t he pl ai nt i f f ' s t enur e i n t he DDU as a pr et r i al

det ai nee const i t ut ed i mper mi ssi bl e puni shment and, t her ef or e,

abr i dged hi s r i ght t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess.

Whi l e Bel l pr ovi des cl ear gui dance about t he

const i t ut i onal bounds of condi t i ons of conf i nement f or pr et r i al

det ai nees, Bel l does not cl ear l y addr ess whet her and when

puni shment i s per mi t t ed as an i ndi vi dual i zed di sci pl i nar y sanct i on

f or a pr et r i al det ai nee' s mi sconduct . I n Col l azo- Leon v. Uni t ed

St at es Bur eau of Pr i sons, 51 F. 3d 315 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , we uphel d a

di sci pl i nar y sanct i on conf i ni ng a pr et r i al det ai nee i n t he DDU f or

ni net y days because he t r i ed t o br i be hi s way out of j ai l . I d. at

-14-


15/31

318- 19. We not ed t hat Bel l was not wr i t t en t o addr ess a "si t uat i on

wher e di scr et e sanct i ons wer e i mposed on i ndi vi dual pr et r i al

det ai nees as di sci pl i ne f or speci f i c i n- house vi ol at i ons. " When i t

comes t o i ndi vi dual i zed di sci pl i ne, we hel d t hat "[ t ] he i nqui r y .

. . does not end wi t h t he desi gnat i on of a condi t i on of conf i nement

as ' puni shment . ' " I d. at 317. I nst ead of r el yi ng on a di st i nct i on

between whether t hi s di sci pl i ne was puni shment or not , whi ch we

deemed "semant i c, " we st at ed t hat we di d not f i nd t hat t her e i s any

meani ngf ul di st i nct i on bet ween t he t er ms ' puni shment ' and

' di sci pl i ne' " i n t he cont ext of an i ndi vi dual i zed di sci pl i nar y

r esponse, i d. , and uphel d t he puni t i ve DDU sanct i on of t he det ai nee

as a val i d exer ci se of r easonabl e di sci pl i nar y power . I d. at 318-

19.

For d ar gues that Col l azo- Leon concer ned a ver y di f f er ent

f act ual scenar i o, one i n whi ch t he di sci pl i nar y i nf r act i on and t he

di sci pl i nar y hear i ng occur r ed dur i ng t he pr et r i al det ent i on i t sel f ,

wher eas For d' s DDU conf i nement i n 2007- 2008 was puni shment f or an

of f ense commi t t ed years ear l i er when he was servi ng a pr i or

cr i mi nal sent ence. For d mi ght be r i ght t hat t he t i mi ng of a

di sci pl i nar y i nf r act i on- - dur i ng t he pr et r i al det ent i on i t sel f as

opposed t o dur i ng a pr i or per i od of i ncar cer at i on- - af f ect s t he

quest i on of whet her pr et r i al di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on vi ol at es

-15-


16/31

subst ant i ve due pr ocess. 5 The cri t i cal i nqui r y i n deci di ng t hi s

appeal , however , i s whet her any r easonabl e of f i ci al i n t hese

ci r cumst ances woul d have underst ood t hat t he cont i nui ng

di sci pl i nar y sanct i on, i mposed when For d was a pr et r i al det ai nee on

di f f er ent char ges, f or conduct t hat occur r ed dur i ng a pr i or per i od

of i ncar cer at i on, vi ol at ed For d' s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o

subst ant i ve or pr ocedur al due pr ocess.

Col l azo- Leon does not def i ni t i vel y answer whet her For d' s

det ent i on was const i t ut i onal or not . I t does, however , pl ai nl y

hol d t hat det er mi ni ng whet her an act i s puni t i ve does not end t he

const i t ut i onal i nqui r y i n t he case of an i ndi vi dual i zed

di sci pl i nar y pr ocess. Col l azo- Leon t hus i l l ust r at es why Bel l al one

does not show t hat t he r i ght at i ssue her e was cl ear l y est abl i shed.

5 Ther e i s no cont r ol l i ng case l aw t hat cl ear l y addr esses t hequest i on of whet her t he mi sconduct f or whi ch a det ai nee i s bei ngdi sci pl i ned must necessar i l y be f r omt he cur r ent per i od of pr et r i aldet ent i on. Nonet hel ess, cour t s have r ecogni zed onl y an except i ont o t he pr ohi bi t i on on pr et r i al puni shment f or di sci pl i nar yi nf r act i ons when nar r owl y f ocused on t he f aci l i t y' s i nt er est i n" t he ef f ect i ve management of t he det ent i on f aci l i t y once t hei ndi vi dual i s conf i ned. " Bel l , 441 U. S. at 540. See, e. g. ,Col l azo- Leon, 51 F. 3d at 317 ( r ef er r i ng t o "di scret e sanct i ons[ t hat ] wer e i mposed on i ndi vi dual pr et r i al det ai nees as di sci pl i nef or speci f i c in-house violations" ( emphasi s added) ) ; Sur pr enant ,

424 F. 3d at 13 ( not i ng t hat "a pr et r i al det ai nee may be di sci pl i nedf or a speci f i c i nst i t ut i onal i nf ract i on committed during the periodof his detention" ( emphasi s added) ) . See al so, Rapi er v. Har r i s,172 F. 3d 999, 1003 ( 7t h Ci r . 1999) ( "Not abl y, t he basi s f or t hi spuni shment i s not t he under l yi ng cr i me of whi ch he st ands accused;r at her , t hi s puni shment i s based upon t he detainee's actions whilein pretrial confinement. " ( emphasi s added) ) .

-16-


17/31

The def endant s r el y on cases t hat address t he nat ure of

di sci pl i nar y sanct i ons, poi nt i ng t o aut hor i t i es hol di ng t hat pr i son

di sci pl i nar y sanct i ons ar e ci vi l pr oceedi ngs t hat ar e di st i nct f r om

cr i mi nal puni shment , at l east f or pur poses of t he Doubl e J eopar dy

Cl ause, see Commonweal t h v. For t e, 671 N. E. 2d 1218 ( Mass. 1996) ,

and t hat di sci pl i nar y sanct i ons may be cont i nued dur i ng non-

consecut i ve cr i mi nal sent ences, see, e. g. , Pl et ka v. Ni x, 957 F. 2d

1480, 1485 ( 8t h Ci r . 1992) ( en banc) ; I n r e Pr i dget t , No. 01- P- 259,

2003 WL 1524678 ( Mass. App. Ct . Mar . 25, 2003) . Whi l e t hese cases

may be r ead as pr ovi di ng some support f or t he def endant s' posi t i on,

t hey do not concer n pr et r i al det ai nees speci f i cal l y.

I n addi t i on t o t hese cases, however , t he def endant s al so

r el y on a st at e cour t r ul i ng t hat addr essed a si t uat i on i nvol vi ng

pr et r i al det ent i on under f act s near l y i dent i cal t o t hose i n For d' s

case. Kar nes v. Nol an, No. 2005- 01854 ( Mass. Super . Ct . Nov. 2,

2006) was a deci si on i ssued by t he Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t i n

f avor of MCI - Cedar J unct i on, t he same f aci l i t y wher e For d was

housed, j ust t wo mont hs bef or e For d s or i gi nal sent ence ended and

hi s pr et r i al det ent i on began. I n Kar nes, a sent enced pr i soner at

MCI - Cedar J unct i on commi t t ed an assaul t f or whi ch he recei ved a

di sci pl i nar y r epor t . I d. , s l i p op. at 2. Bef or e a di sci pl i nar y

hear i ng was hel d, Karnes compl eted hi s sent ence and was r el eased t o

t he cust ody of Mi ddl esex Count y t o awai t t r i al on pendi ng unr el at ed

char ges. I d. Kar nes was t hen al so cr i mi nal l y char ged wi t h t he

-17-


18/31

assaul t t hat he had commi t t ed at MCI - Cedar J unct i on, and was

r et ur ned t o MCI - Cedar J unct i on as a pr et r i al det ai nee t o awai t

t r i al on bot h new char ges. I d. Pr i son of f i ci al s hel d t he

pr evi ousl y schedul ed di sci pl i nar y hear i ng, and Kar nes r ecei ved a

di sci pl i nar y sanct i on of f i ve year s i n t he DDU. I d. Kar nes f i l ed

a compl ai nt i n t he Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t f or a decl ar at or y

j udgment t hat t he super i ntendent had vi ol at ed hi s due process

r i ght s and f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef . 6

The Super i or Cour t r ej ect ed Kar nes' s ar gument t hat "hi s

commi t ment t o t he DDU based on a di sci pl i nary i nf r act i on commi t t ed

dur i ng an el apsed i ndependent sentence was i mpr oper because of hi s

st at us as a pr e- t r i al det ai nee. " I d. at 6. The cour t di d not ci t e

Bel l , Col l azo- Leon, or any ot her pr ecedent concer ni ng i mper mi ssi bl e

puni shment , st at i ng i nst ead onl y t hat " [ c] ommi t ment t o t he DDU i s

a ci vi l pr oceedi ng t hat i s separ at e and i ndependent f r om t he

cr i mi nal pr ocess accor di ng t o whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f was det ai ned. "

I d. at 6- 7 ( ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Bl oom, 760 N. E. 2d 297 ( Mass.

App. Ct . 2001) ) . The cour t concl uded t hat conf i nement i n t he DDU

6 The di st r i ct cour t di st i ngui shed a l at er deci si on by t heMassachuset t s Appeal s Cour t i n Commonweal t h v. Kar nes, 68 Mass.App. Ct . 1118, 2007 WL 1217695 (Apr . 25, 2007) , whi ch concer ns t he

same detai nee i n a subsequent sui t af t er he was convi ct ed, as notdi r ect l y addr essi ng t he quest i on of due pr ocess but r at her t hequest i on of doubl e j eopar dy. The i ni t i al Kar nes case, di scussedher e, speci f i cal l y sought a decl ar at or y j udgment concer ni ng t heconst i t ut i onal i t y of pr et r i al di sci pl i nar y puni shment f or conductt hat occur r ed dur i ng a pr i or i ncar cer at i on, t he exact f act ualscenar i o t hat t he def endant s f aced wi t h For d.

-18-


19/31

di d not vi ol at e t he pr et r i al det ai nee' s due pr ocess r i ght s.

Al t hough t he reasoni ng of Karnes may not be robust , t he

f act s ar e near l y i dent i cal t o t hi s case. The Super i or Cour t ' s

r ul i ng i n Karnes woul d have appear ed t o be r el evant gui dance t o

of f i ci al s at MCI - Cedar J unct i on i n 2007- 2008, and i t woul d have

been r easonabl e f or t he def endant s t o have r el i ed on i t . 7 Whet her

or not we agr ee wi t h t he hol di ng of Kar nes, " [ i ] f j udges t hus

di sagr ee on a const i t ut i onal quest i on, i t i s unf ai r t o subj ect

[ of f i ci al s] t o money damages f or pi cki ng t he l osi ng si de of t he

cont r over sy. " Wi l son v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 618 ( 1999) .

The Supr eme Cour t ' s st at ement i n Bel l t hat " [ d] ue process

r equi r es t hat a pr et r i al det ai nee not be puni shed, " 441 U. S. at 535

n. 16, must be scr upul ousl y honored. But t hat s t atement does not

f or ecl ose consi der at i on of i mpor t ant i nst i t ut i onal i nt er est s, as

set f or t h i n Col l azo- Leon, 51 F. 3d 315, concer ni ng di sci pl i nar y

sanct i ons t hat may pr oper l y be i mposed on a pr et r i al det ai nee. See

Br ady v. Di l l , 187 F. 3d 104, 115 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( f or pur poses of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, "cour t s must def i ne t he r i ght . . . at an

7 I n hi ghl i ght i ng t he def endant s' r easonabl e r el i ance on anunpubl i shed st at e t r i al cour t deci si on, we do not mean t o i ndi cat et hat such an opi ni on coul d be suf f i ci ent t o show "cl ear l yest abl i shed l aw. " To t he cont r ar y, her e, our r el i ance on t hi s

unpubl i shed opi ni on i s t o show t he absence of cl ear l y est abl i shedl aw. There are a number of i mport ant f act ors t hat make i tpar t i cul ar l y appr opr i at e f or us t o r el y on t hi s case her e. Thedeci si on was di r ect ed t o t he same f aci l i t y wher e For d was hel d( MCI - Cedar J unct i on) ; i t i s t he cl osest f actual anal og t o For d' ssi t uat i on; and t her e i s no cl ear consensus i n ot her case l awconcer ni ng t hi s speci f i c i ssue.

-19-


20/31

appr opr i at e l evel of gener al i t y") . The r i ght at i ssue her e i s not

t he r i ght of a pr et r i al det ai nee t o be f r ee f r om puni shment

gener al l y, but r at her t he r i ght of a pr et r i al det ai nee t o be f r ee

f r om puni shment t hat was val i dl y i mposed whi l e servi ng a pr i or

cr i mi nal sent ence. Nei t her Bel l nor Col l azo- Leon cl ear l y answer s

t hi s quest i on. Vi ewed at t he appr opr i at e l evel of gener al i t y,

par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he deci si on t hat MCI - Cedar J unct i on had

j ust r ecei ved i n Kar nes, we cannot say t hat al l r easonabl e pr i son

of f i ci al s woul d have known t hat hol di ng For d i n t he DDU dur i ng hi s

pr et r i al det ent i on f or an of f ense t hat occur r ed dur i ng a pr i or

cr i mi nal sent ence was unconst i t ut i onal . Any vi ol at i on of For d' s

r i ght t o subst ant i ve due pr ocess was not a vi ol at i on of cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw as of 2007- 2008. We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat t he

def endant s wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y wi t h r espect t o t he

al l eged vi ol at i on of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o subst ant i ve due

pr ocess.

Procedural Due Process

The di st r i ct cour t al so concl uded t hat def endant Bender

vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o pr ocedur al due pr ocess by

conf i ni ng hi m i n t he DDU as a pr et r i al det ai nee wi t hout a f r esh

hear i ng and t hat Bender was not ent i t l ed to qual i f i ed i mmuni t y wi t h

r espect t o t hat vi ol at i on. See For d I , 746 F. Supp. 2d at 292- 95,

297- 98. Bender di sput es t hese concl usi ons, cont endi ng t hat t he

2003 hear i ng const i t ut ed adequat e pr ocess f or t he ent i r e

-20-


21/31

di sci pl i nar y conf i nement t hat f ol l owed, r egar dl ess of For d' s change

i n st at us.

Even when pr i son of f i ci al s per mi ssi bl y may puni sh a

pr et r i al det ai nee f or di scr et e vi ol at i ons of f aci l i t y r ul es, t hey

must pr ovi de hi m wi t h adequat e pr ocess. See Sur pr enant , 424 F. 3d

at 17- 18. Bender does not cont est t hat For d had a l i ber t y i nt er est

suf f i ci ent t o t r i gger pr ocedur al saf eguar ds.

I t i s, mor eover , wel l est abl i shed t hat t he pr ocess t hat

a pr et r i al det ai nee must be af f or ded at a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng i s

t hat set f or t h by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Wol f f v. McDonnel l , 418 U. S.

539, 564- 71 ( 1974) . See Sur pr enant , 424 F. 3d at 18; Benj ami n v.

Fraser , 264 F. 3d 175, 189- 90 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ; Mi t chel l v. Dupni k, 75

F. 3d 517, 525 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) . Thi s i s t he same pr ocess t o whi ch

For d was ent i t l ed as a convi ct ed i nmat e. See Smi t h v. Mass. Dep' t

of Cor r . , 936 F. 2d 1390, 1398- 99 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . Wi t hal , For d was

gi ven a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng pr i or t o bei ng pl aced i n t he DDU i n

2003 and has not chal l enged t hat pr ocess as i nadequate. Nor does

For d i dent i f y any di f f er ent or addi t i onal pr ocedur es t o whi ch he

may have been ent i t l ed as a r esul t of hi s change i n st at us. Whi l e

i t was cl ear i n 2007- 2008 t hat For d had t o be gi ven a hear i ng

bef or e bei ng puni shed f or r ul es vi ol at i ons, t he quest i on we must

answer i s whet her i t was cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat an ot her wi se

adequat e hear i ng hel d when he was a convi ct ed i nmat e woul d not

suf f i ce.

-21-


22/31

The pur pose of a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng i s t o al l ow t he

accused ( be i t a convi ct or a pr et r i al det ai nee) t o cont est whet her

he i n f act commi t t ed t he i nf r act i on. See Wol f f , 418 U. S. at 558,

564- 65. For d i dent i f i es no pr act i cal pur pose t hat woul d be served

by hol di ng a second, r edundant hear i ng t o est abl i sh hi s

cul pabi l i t y. At any r at e, gi ven t he dear t h of case l aw suggest i ng

t hat pr et r i al det ai nees ar e ent i t l ed t o anyt hi ng mor e t han t he

pr ocedur es set f or t h i n Wol f f , r easonabl e pr i son of f i ci al s coul d

have concl uded t hat t he 2003 hear i ng const i t ut ed adequate pr ocess .

Accor di ngl y, Bender i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on For d' s

pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m.

B. Equitable Relief

I n addi t i on t o money damages, now r ever sed, t he di st r i ct

cour t i ssued decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef . On Sept ember 30,

2010, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat ( 1) Bender and St . Amand had

vi ol at ed For d' s subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght s by conf i ni ng For d i n

t he DDU as a pr et r i al detai nee as puni shment f or hi s 2002 conduct ,

( 2) Bender had vi ol at ed For d' s pr ocedur al due pr ocess r i ght s i n

2007 by conf i ni ng hi m i n t he DDU wi t hout a new hear i ng as a

pr et r i al det ai nee on t he st at e cr i mi nal assaul t char ge, and ( 3)

Bender had vi ol at ed For d' s procedur al due pr ocess r i ght s i n 2008 by

conf i ni ng hi mi n t he DDU wi t hout a new hear i ng as a convi ct ed f el on

servi ng a sent ence. For d I , 746 F. Supp. 2d at 279- 80. The

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed decl ar at or y j udgment al ong t he same l i nes i n

-22-


23/31

an or der dated November 16, 2010. 8 Ford I I , 2010 WL 4781757, at

*1. On J anuar y 27, 2012, af t er a t hr ee- day bench t r i al , t he

di st r i ct cour t i ssued an i nj unct i on or der i ng t he DOC t o ( 1) "ensur e

t hat For d has, and cont i nues t o have f or t he r emai nder of hi s

sent ence, oppor t uni t i es t o par t i ci pat e i n any t r ansi t i onal pr ogr ams

t hat ar e avai l abl e t o t he gener al popul at i on i nmat es, " and ( 2)

"deem sat i sf i ed For d' s 10- year DDU sanct i on t hat was i ssued i n

200[ 3] . " For d I I I , 2012 WL 262532, at *18.

On August 4, 2011, For d was t r ansf err ed f r omt he DDU t o

t he gener al popul at i on at MCI - Cedar J unct i on. On Apr i l 17, 2012,

For d was rel eased f r om DOC cust ody al t oget her . The def endant s

ar gue that t he equi t abl e rel i ef was moot when ent er ed, or r ender ed

moot by For d' s r el ease. 9 For d r esponds t hat t he i nj unct i ve and

8 For d ar gues t hat t he decl ar at or y j udgment i s not pr oper l ybef or e us because the def endant s f ai l ed t o desi gnat e t he separ at e

decl ar at or y j udgment or der i n t hei r not i ce of appeal as r equi r ed byFeder al Rul e of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 3( c) . Fai l ur e t o desi gnat e apar t i cul ar or der f or appeal i s t ypi cal l y f at al . Shel by v.Super f or mance I nt ' l , I nc. , 435 F. 3d 42, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Thepur pose of Rul e 3, however , i s t o gi ve t he cour t and opposi t i onnot i ce of t he i ssues chal l enged on appeal . Mar kel Am. I ns. Co. v.D az- Sant i ago, 674 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I n t hei r not i ce,t he def endant s desi gnat ed t he memor andum of deci si on, whi chcont ai ned t he same rul i ngs as t he separ at el y i ssued decl ar at or yj udgment or der . Gi ven t he near l y i dent i cal l anguage i n t hememorandum and the or der i n t hi s case, we wi l l exami ne t he mer i t sof t he def endant s' argument .

9 The def endant s onl y br i ef l y cont est t he di st r i ct cour t ' shol di ng t hat t hey vi ol at ed For d' s r i ght s when t hey conf i ned hi m i nt he DDU as a pr et r i al det ai nee, and do not di scuss t he di st r i ctcour t ' s hol di ng t hat t hey vi ol at ed For d' s r i ght s when t hey conf i nedhi m i n t he DDU as a sent enced i nmate. Even i f t he def endant s hadf ul l y br i ef ed t he mer i t s of t he const i t ut i onal i ssues on appeal ,

-23-


24/31

decl ar at or y rel i ef "was pr oper l y ent er ed by the di st r i ct cour t but

was subsequent l y render ed par t i al l y moot by Mr . For d' s r el ease f r om

cust ody and t he DOC' s cancel l at i on of Mr . For d' s DDU sanct i on. " As

a r esul t of For d' s r el ease f r om DOC cust ody, we concl ude t hat

For d' s cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r el i ef no l onger pr esent a l i ve case or

cont r over sy. We t her ef or e vacat e t he di st r i ct cour t ' s j udgment .

The basel i ne doct r i nal pr i nci pl es of mootness ar e

f ami l i ar . The Const i t ut i on "conf i nes t he j ur i sdi cti on of t he

f eder al cour t s t o act ual cases and cont r over si es. " Bar r v. Gal vi n,

626 F. 3d 99, 104 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . See U. S. Const . Ar t . I I I , 2. "A case gener al l y

becomes moot when t he cont r oversy i s no l onger l i ve or t he part i es

l ack a l egal l y cogni zabl e i nt er est i n t he out come. " Shel by v.

Super f or mance I nt ' l , I nc. , 435 F. 3d 42, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . Event s

subsequent t o a di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of j udgment may r ender a

case moot and pr ecl ude appel l at e r evi ew of t he mer i t s. See

Li ber t ar i an Par t y of N. H. v. Gar dner , 638 F. 3d 6, 12 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ; Di f f ender f er v. Gomez- Col on, 587 F. 3d 445, 451 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . When t hi s occur s, cour t s of appeal s nor mal l y wi l l vacat e

t he j udgment bel ow. See Di f f ender f er , 587 F. 3d at 451. The

i nci dence of moot ness pr esent s a pur el y l egal quest i on and,

whi ch t hey di d not , we need not r each t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t hedef endant s' act i ons si nce we f i nd For d' s cl ai ms f or equi t abl er el i ef t o be moot .

-24-


25/31

t heref ore, engenders de novo r evi ew. See Cul hane v. Aur ora Loan

Ser vs. of Neb. , 708 F. 3d 282, 289 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

A pr i soner ' s chal l enge t o pr i son condi t i ons or pol i ci es

i s gener al l y r ender ed moot by hi s t r ansf er or r el ease. See, e. g. ,

J or dan v. Sosa, 654 F. 3d 1012, 1027 ( 10t h Ci r . 2011) ; Rendel man v.

Rouse, 569 F. 3d 182, 186 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ; Ol i ver v. Scot t , 276 F. 3d

736, 741 ( 5t h Ci r . 2002) ; Scot t v. Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, 139 F. 3d

940, 941 ( D. C. Ci r . 1998) . I n I ncumaa v. Ozmi nt , t he Four t h

Ci r cui t per suasi vel y reasoned t hat ,

Once an i nmat e i s r emoved f r omt he envi r onmenti n whi ch he i s subj ect ed t o t he chal l engedpol i cy or pract i ce, absent a cl ai m f ordamages, he no l onger has a l egal l y cogni zabl ei nt er est i n a j udi ci al deci si on on t he mer i t sof hi s cl ai m. Any decl ar at or y or i nj unct i ver el i ef or der ed i n t he i nmat e' s f avor i n suchsi t uat i ons woul d have no pr act i cal i mpact ont he i nmat e' s r i ght s and woul d not r edr ess i nany way the i nj ur y he or i gi nal l y assert ed.

507 F. 3d 281, 287 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) . Fol l owi ng t hi s r easoni ng, t he

Four t h Ci r cui t f ound t hat a pr i soner ' s chal l enge t o a publ i cat i on

ban i n the maxi mumsecur i t y uni t became moot when the pr i soner was

r el eased f r om t he uni t . I d.

I n t hi s case, For d' s r el ease f r om DOC cust ody render ed

moot al l of hi s cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r el i ef . Once r el eased f r om

cust ody, For d l ost any l egal l y cogni zabl e i nt er est i n a decl ar at i on

t hat t he DOC' s act i ons had been unconst i t ut i onal or an i nj unct i on

r el at ed t o hi s pr i or conf i nement . Ther e i s no " l i ve case or

cont r over sy" t o deci de, nor any meani ngf ul r el i ef t o pr ovi de, now

-25-


26/31

t hat For d has been r el eased. "Wi t h l i mi t ed except i ons, not pr esent

here, i ssuance of a decl aratory j udgment deemi ng past conduct

i l l egal i s al so not per mi ssi bl e as i t woul d be mer el y advi sor y. "

Am. Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on of Mass. v. U. S. Conf er ence of Cat hol i c

Bi shops, 705 F. 3d 44, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

For d concedes t hat t he f i r st i nj unct i on, or der i ng t he DOC

t o pr ovi de hi m wi t h access t o t r ansi t i onal pr ogr ams "f or t he

r emai nder of hi s sent ence, " expi r ed, by i t s own t er ms, upon For d' s

r el ease. For d agr ees t hat he no l onger has a l egal l y cogni zabl e

i nt er est i n t hi s r el i ef and t hat vacat ur i s pr oper .

For d l i kewi se concedes t hat he no l onger has an i nt er est

i n a decl ar at i on r el at ed t o hi s det ent i on i n t he DDU as a sent enced

i nmate wi t hout a new hear i ng. Ford concedes t hat " t he moot ness

act ual l y occur r ed when Def endant s vol unt ar i l y t r ansf er r ed Mr . For d

t o t he gener al popul at i on pr i or t o t he expi r at i on of hi s 10- year

DDU sanct i on. " But Ford argues agai nst vacat ur s i nce " i t was

Def endant s' own acqui escence that caused t he decl ar at or y r el i ef t o

become moot . " The ar gument f ai l s. Vacat ur i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s

case si nce t he i ssue woul d have become moot when Ford was r el eased

f r om cust ody even i f t he DOC had not vol unt ar i l y rel eased hi m f r om

t he DDU. See Di f f ender f er , 587 F. 3d at 451- 52 ( decl i ni ng t o

addr ess t he poss i bi l i t y t hat t he case was r ender ed moot by

vol unt ar y act i on bef or e i nt er veni ng, i ndependent event and vacat i ng

j udgment bel ow) .

-26-


27/31

As t o hi s r emai ni ng cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r el i ef , For d

i nvokes an except i on t o t he moot ness doct r i ne f or conduct t hat i s

"capabl e of r epet i t i on, yet evadi ng r evi ew. " He bear s t he bur den

of est abl i shi ng t hi s except i on. To do so, For d must show " ( 1) t he

chal l enged act i on i s i n i t s dur at i on t oo shor t t o be f ul l y

l i t i gat ed pr i or t o cessat i on or expi r at i on; and ( 2) t her e i s a

r easonabl e expect at i on or a demonst r at ed pr obabi l i t y t hat t he same

compl ai ni ng par t y wi l l be subj ect t o t he same act i on agai n. "

Li ber t ar i an Par t y of N. H. , 638 F. 3d at 12 ( quot i ng FEC v. Wi s.

Ri ght t o Li f e, I nc. , 551 U. S. 449, 462 ( 2007) ) . For d' s asser t i ons

f ai l t o sat i sf y t he except i on' s second r equi r ement , si nce t her e i s

no reasonabl e expect at i on t hat he wi l l agai n be conf i ned t o t he DDU

as a pr et r i al det ai nee, wi t hout a hear i ng, as an admi ni st r at i ve

sanct i on f or conduct t hat occur r ed whi l e he was ser vi ng a pr i or

sentence.

For d ar gues t hat he f aces, as a mat t er of l aw, a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y of r e- ar r est " [ b] ecause he has a cri mi nal

r ecor d. " For d was convi ct ed i n 1992, and t hen agai n i n 2008 f or a

cr i me commi t t ed whi l e i mpr i soned on t he or i gi nal 1992 charge. We

di sagr ee t hat t hi s cr i mi nal r ecor d pr ovi des a reasonabl e

expect at i on or demonst r at ed pr obabi l i t y that he woul d agai n r e-

of f end once he was r el eased f r om conf i nement f or t he 2008

convi ct i on. The Supr eme Cour t has advi sed t hat , " f or pur poses of

assessi ng t he l i kel i hood t hat stat e aut hor i t i es wi l l r ei nf l i ct a

-27-


28/31

gi ven i nj ur y, we gener al l y have been unwi l l i ng t o assume t hat t he

par t y seeki ng r el i ef wi l l r epeat t he t ype of mi sconduct t hat woul d

once agai n pl ace hi mor her at r i sk of t hat i nj ur y. " Honi g v. Doe,

484 U. S. 305, 320 ( 1988) . For d' s two pr i or convi ct i ons ar e t hus

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a r easonabl e expect at i on t hat he wi l l

r e- of f end, 10 and hi s r emai ni ng cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r el i ef ar e not

saved f r om moot ness.

C. Attorneys' Fees

Fi nal l y, we t ur n t o t he def endant s' separ at e appeal of

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s awar d of at t or neys' f ees and cost s. For d V,

903 F. Supp. 2d at 103- 04. To r ei t er at e, al l cl ai ms f or damages

have been di smi ssed and al l cl ai ms f or equi t abl e r el i ef ar e moot .

For d may, never t hel ess, r emai n a "pr evai l i ng par t y" f or t he pur pose

of at t or neys' f ees and cost s under 1988 i f he "cl ear l y succeeded

i n obt ai ni ng t he r el i ef sought bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t and an

i nt erveni ng event r endered t he case moot on appeal . " 11

10 Al t hough For d st at ed i n hi s r esponse t hat he "wasr ear r est ed f ol l owi ng hi s Apr i l 2012 r el ease and [ was] agai n i n t hecust ody of t he DOC awai t i ng t r i al , " he pr ovi ded no f ur t her det ai l sconcer ni ng t he nat ur e or di sposi t i on of t he char ges. I n any event ,t hi s asser t i on does not af f ect our anal ysi s.

11 We must "appl y t hi s t est by l ooki ng onl y t o what r el i ef t he

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed and not t o whet her t he case was r i ght l ydeci ded. " Di f f ender f er , 587 F. 3d at 453; see al so Ct r . f orBi ol ogi cal Di ver si t y v. Mar i na Poi nt Dev. Co. , 566 F. 3d 794, 805- 06( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( not i ng " t he wi de agr eement by appel l at e j udgest hat t hey shoul d not under t ake t o del ve i nt o t he det ai l s of adi st r i ct cour t ' s r esol ut i on of a cont r over sy t hat has si nce becomemoot i n or der t o deci de t he anci l l ar y quest i on of f ees" ) .

-28-


29/31

Di f f ender f er , 587 F. 3d at 454. We anal yze t he decl ar at or y j udgment

and t he subsequent i nj unct i on separ at el y.

On Apr i l 30, 2008, For d pl ed gui l t y t o t he char ges of

assaul t wi t h i nt ent t o mur der and mai l i ng her oi n t o an i nmat e, and

r emai ned i n t he DDU as a convi ct ed i nmat e. On November 16, 2010,

t he di st r i ct cour t ent er ed decl ar at or y j udgment r el at i ng t o For d' s

r i ght s as a pr et r i al det ai nee and as a convi ct ed i nmat e.

The decl ar at or y j udgment r el at ed t o For d' s r i ght s as a

pr et r i al det ai nee was moot when i ssued. At t hi s poi nt i n t i me,

For d was no l onger a pr et r i al det ai nee. The decl ar at or y j udgment

amount ed t o an advi sor y opi ni on concerned wi t h past al l eged wr ongs.

The di st r i ct cour t t r i ed t o escape t hi s concl usi on by f i ndi ng

For d' s chal l enge "capabl e of r epet i t i on, yet evadi ng r evi ew. " For d

I , 746 F. Supp. 2d at 285- 87. The di st r i ct cour t ' s anal ysi s

cl ear l y conf l i ct s wi t h our hol di ng t oday, and we r ever se f or t he

same r easons expl ai ned above. For d cannot r et ai n t he st at us of a

"pr evai l i ng par t y" f or r el i ef t hat was moot when i ssued.

The decl ar at or y j udgment addressed t o For d' s r i ght s as a

convi ct ed i nmate, t o t he cont r ary, was not moot when ent ered. At

t hat t i me, Ford was a convi ct ed i nmate i n t he DDU wi t hout t he

benef i t of a new hear i ng. For d successf ul l y obt ai ned t he r el i ef

sought bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t even i f we must vacat e i t now.

On August 4, 2011, t he DOC t r ansf er r ed Ford f r omt he DDU

t o t he gener al popul at i on at t he cor r ect i onal f aci l i t y. On J anuar y

-29-


30/31

27, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued t wo i nj unct i ons t o ensur e

For d' s access t o t r ansi t i onal pr ogr ams t hat wer e avai l abl e t o

gener al popul at i on i nmat es, and t o deem sat i sf i ed For d' s 2003 DDU

sanct i on.

The f i r st i nj unct i on, ensur i ng For d' s access t o

t r ansi t i onal pr ogr ammi ng f or t he remai nder of hi s sent ence, was not

moot when i ssued si nce For d was st i l l i n DOC cust ody. Both expert s

agr eed that t he pr ogr ams were i mport ant t o hel p For d pr epare f or

hi s expect ed r el ease. Even t hough subsequent l y moot ed, Ford was a

"pr evai l i ng par t y" on t hi s poi nt bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t .

For d cannot , however , be deemed a "pr evai l i ng part y" wi t h

r espect t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s second i nj unct i on, r equi r i ng t he

def endant s t o deemt he 2003 admi ni st r at i ve sanct i on sat i sf i ed. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s i nj unct i on was moot when i ssued, si nce i t l i f t ed

a sanct i on t hat was no l onger i n ef f ect . For d ar gues that t he

i nj unct i on "served t he i mpor t ant pur pose of ensur i ng that t he 2003

DDU sanct i on coul d no l onger serve as t he basi s of Mr . For d' s

unl awf ul DDU conf i nement . " There was no r easonabl e expect at i on,

however , t hat For d woul d r etur n t o DOC cust ody as a pr et r i al

det ai nee. Mor eover , t he def endant s woul d t hen be f l out i ng t he

decl ar at or y j udgment , now i n ef f ect , wer e t hey t o r et ur n For d t o

t he DDU wi t hout a new hear i ng on t he basi s of t he 2003 sanct i on.

For t hese r easons, For d can onl y be consi der ed a

"pr evai l i ng par t y" f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s decl ar at or y j udgment

-30-


31/31

r el at ed t o convi cted i nmat es, and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nj unct i on

r el at ed t o t r ansi t i onal pr ogr ammi ng. We r emand t o t he di st r i ct

cour t t o det er mi ne t he appr opr i at e amount of at t orneys' f ees and

cost s f or t hese t wo f or ms of r el i ef .

III. CONCLUSION

For t he r easons above, we r ever se the di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si on t hat t he def endant s ar e not ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y, r everse t he award of money damages, vacate al l equi t abl e

r el i ef , and r emand f or r econsi der at i on of a mor e l i mi t ed cl ai m of

at t or neys' f ees and cost s.

So ordered.

-31-

ford v. bender, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents