Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2d 25
the prison context). We turn now to the regulation at issue in this case to
determine whether it is specific enough, both facially and as applied, to
provide adequate notice to inmates of the required standard of conduct.
We cannot say that the regulation is impermissibly vague on its face.
Prison officials have a legitimate need to control the possessions of
inmates, and it is not possible to list explicitly all items which are
allowable. Switching the burden to require inmates only to possess
approved items is a reasonable confinement procedure, provided that the
inmates are given reasonably clear instruction as to what constitutes an
approved item so that the regulation, as applied, is not impermissibly
vague.
The parties do not dispute that plaintiff received the altered jeans from an
inmate in the prison laundry room authorized to dispense prison clothing.
Plaintiff contends that he could reasonably have relied on the prison
laundry to issue clothing that, if not sanctioned, then at least was not
prohibited by prison officials. Also, plaintiff has indicated in his affidavit
that other prisoners wore altered clothing without reprimand and also that
he had never seen a rule or regulation imposing a duty to turn in clothes
issued by the prison laundry.
In response, defendants argue that even if the definition of contraband is
vague, a pair of pants with an opening in the crotch carries some indicia of
wrongdoing within the context of a prison. Also, defendants assert that
some of plaintiff's statements suggest that he may have realized that the
jeans were prohibited. For example, at one point plaintiff indicated that he
noticed the zipper while he was with his visitor, but did not report it at that
time because he thought that it would end the visit. Defendants also point
out that the person issuing the jeans was another prisoner, not a prison
official. Those arguments weigh in defendants' favor, but they do not
eliminate the need to weigh competing evidence. Rather, a factual inquiry
into what plaintiff reasonably understood was banned is required. Plaintiff
has "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,"
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505,
2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), of whether he had sufficient notice of the
violation. Accordingly, for that reason we must vacate the grant of
summary judgment in favor of defendants Taylor and Bair. On remand,
the district court should determine whether an inmate of reasonable
intelligence would have realized that the altered jeans issued to plaintiff
were contraband and that a duty existed to turn the jeans in to prison
officials. If, in that context, the plaintiff prevails, the relief to which
plaintiff would seemingly be primarily entitled is the correction of his
defendants Taylor and Bair, for the reasons previously stated in this
opinion, we remand to the district court for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
While there is evidence in the record that Gaston knew about the extra zippered
closure prior to visitation hours, we construe the evidence in favor of the
plaintiff in light of the current summary judgment context of this case
On remand, the district court should consider exactly what level of indifference,
if any, the defendant supervisors showed. In the context of a procedural due
process claim, to which this claim is closely akin, a negligent oversight may
not in and of itself render a defendant liable under Sec. 1983. See Daniels v.
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 334 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663, 666 n. 3, 88 L.Ed.2d
662 (1986) (holding that negligence, in the context of a tort claim relating to
bodily injuries allegedly sustained by an inmate because of lack of maintenance
of a prison stairway, does not constitute a violation of constitutional due
process, but reserving the question of whether "recklessness" or "gross
negligence" is sufficient to trigger the protections of constitutional due process)
The district court did not reach the issue of whether defendants can
meritoriously assert against plaintiff's claims for damages the defense of
qualified immunity under the "clearly established" rights standard of Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Accordingly,
we express no views at this time as to that issue