Dexter v. Bosko

• Decision Date: 11 April 2008
• Docket Number: No. 20060526.,20060526.
• Parties: Kelvin DEXTER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jason BOSKO, Barry Sanns, and Hank Galetka, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

184 P.3d 592

2008 UT 29

Kelvin DEXTER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jason BOSKO, Barry Sanns, and Hank Galetka, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 20060526.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 11, 2008.

Peter W. Summerill, James R. Hasenyager, Ogden, for plaintiff.

Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Peggy E. Stone, Philip S. Lott, Asst. Att'ys Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendants.

WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Defendants, two corrections officers and the warden who had charge of the plaintiff as a prisoner, appeal the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss plaintiff's personal injury claims. The plaintiff's claims arise from injuries suffered in a vehicle accident while being transported in custody. The plaintiff brought the claims under our state constitutional prohibition on unnecessary rigor in confinement. On the basis of the pleadings alone, the trial court determined that the complaint, if proven true, made sufficient allegations to establish a violation of the Utah Constitution's unnecessary rigor clause. We agree but remand for additional proceedings in due course on other material factual issues that may, or may not, make the claim defective as a matter of law.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 When reviewing a motion to dismiss we assume the factual allegations in the complaint are true and consider them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.¹ In this instance, that is the plaintiff, Kelvin Dexter. As such, we recite the facts in that light.

¶ 3 In December 2000, Utah State Prison guards Jason Bosko and Barry Sanns loaded Dexter and eight other inmates into a fifteen-passenger van for transport by freeway to the Beaver County Jail. The van was equipped with working seatbelts; but the inmates, who were handcuffed and shackled, were unable to buckle their own seatbelts. Several inmates asked to have their seatbelts fastened,² but Bosko and Sanns refused.³ Bosko, the driver, then fastened his own seatbelt and began driving. During the journey, Bosko momentarily diverted his attention from the road, the van drifted, Bosko overcorrected, and the van went into the median. As a result, the van rolled three times, and Dexter was thrown from the vehicle. Dexter was paralyzed as a result of injuries sustained in the accident and died five years later due to complications from those injuries.

¶ 4 Dexter filed a complaint against Defendants in December 2004, contending that the prison officials' failure to place him in a seatbelt violated his rights under article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Dexter's complaint was sufficient to state a claim under the unnecessary rigor clause.⁴ Defendants subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss.

ANALYSIS

¶ 5 The central question on appeal is the scope of the unnecessary rigor clause of the Utah Constitution and how, if at all, the clause applies here. "[W]e review de novo a district court's interpretation of constitutional provisions, granting it no deference."⁵

I. SCOPE OF THE UNNECESSARY RIGOR CLAUSE

¶ 6 Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution states as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required; excessive fines shall not be imposed; nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted. Persons arrested or imprisoned shall not be treated with unnecessary rigor."⁶

¶ 7 Although the first sentence of article 1, section 9 closely approximates the language of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,⁷ the unnecessary rigor provision has no federal counterpart. Nearly identical provisions, however, exist in only four other state constitutions.⁸ The relative rarity of unnecessary rigor clauses results in a dearth of unnecessary rigor jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, and we have had few opportunities to interpret or apply the unnecessary rigor clause of the Utah Constitution.

¶ 8 In our 1996 decision in Bott v. DeLand, we said that "the guarantee against unnecessarily rigorous treatment . . . protects [prisoners and arrestees] against unnecessary abuse."⁹ We also said that the applicable "definition of `abuse' focuses on `needlessly harsh, degrading, or dehumanizing' treatment of prisoners."¹⁰

¶ 9 Defendants argue that the somewhat broad interpretation of unnecessary rigor in Bott should be rejected and that a historical analysis supports a more narrow interpretation of the clause. The unnecessary rigor clause, they contend, was meant by the framers and Utah citizens as a proscription only against the physically cruel and barbarous treatment of prisoners that characterized the American colonial era. According to Defendants, the only important distinction between the unnecessary rigor clause and the cruel and unusual punishment clause is the stage of criminal proceedings at which the protection applies, rather than in the scope of the protection granted.

¶ 10 Dexter, on the other hand, argues that the interpretation of the unnecessary rigor clause in Bott is supported by the plain language and historical context of the provision, and that Defendants' proposed interpretation must be rejected because it would render the unnecessary rigor clause meaningless. Dexter further asserts that the authors of the Utah Constitution intended the clause to provide protection from inhumane treatment and to regulate conditions of confinement and treatment of inmates.

¶ 11 In interpreting provisions of the Utah Constitution, we begin with a review of the constitutional text. We also "inform our textual interpretation with historical evidence of the framers' intent."¹¹ Finally, we may consider well-reasoned and meaningful decisions made by courts of last resort in sister states with similar constitutional provisions.¹²

¶ 12 The term "rigor" is defined as "an act or instance of strictness, severity, harshness, oppression, or cruelty."¹³ Such a meaning applies well in this context. It appears supported by the plain language of the unnecessary rigor provision itself, which prohibits unnecessarily rigorous treatment of persons arrested or imprisoned, particularly when considered in conjunction with the other language of the same section regarding excessive fines, bail, or punishments. The history of the provision, which remains unchanged since statehood, is also consistent with such a use of the word.

¶ 13 At the Utah constitutional convention of 1895, Delegate, and later Governor, Heber M. Wells proclaimed that the object of the unnecessary rigor provision was to "protect persons in jail if they shall be treated inhumanely."¹⁴

¶ 14 By today's standards, the conditions in the prison and county jails at the time of the Utah constitutional convention were bleak. Surely this inhumane treatment influenced the convention delegates to include the unnecessary rigor clause in the Utah Constitution. The territorial prison was reportedly in terrible condition, and the county jails were reported to have "barbarous practices."¹⁵ "In Utah, the desire to eliminate brutality and to ensure decent and humane treatment for convicts may have been the catalyst of the unnecessary rigor provision."¹⁶

¶ 15 Statutes in effect at the time suggest the same meaning. Officers guilty of willful acts of inhumanity or oppression toward a prisoner were themselves subject to prosecution resulting in imprisonment or fines.¹⁷ Officers who, without lawful necessity, assaulted or beat anyone were likewise punishable.¹⁸ Any injury to a prisoner not authorized by law was also punishable as if the prisoner had not been convicted.¹⁹

¶ 16 The prohibition against unnecessary rigor clearly includes intentional physical abuse of persons under arrest or imprisoned. "[A]lthough police may use `reasonable and necessary force' in making an arrest, the prohibition against unnecessary rigor does not allow police officers to commit assault and battery on a criminal suspect."²⁰

¶ 17 The unnecessary rigor clause of the Utah Constitution protects persons arrested or imprisoned from the imposition of circumstances on them during their confinement that demand more of the prisoner than society is entitled to require. The restriction on unnecessary rigor is focused on the circumstances and nature of the process and conditions of confinement. By contrast, the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the state constitution is directed to the sentence imposed. While there is some overlap on a factual level, the purposes are different. Torture may be cruel and unusual but strict silence during given hours may not. Strict silence, however, may impose unnecessary rigor or unduly harsh restrictions on the service of one's otherwise proper sentence.

¶ 18 As with all such fact-intensive inquiries, the particular event or act in question, and the context in which it arose, are necessary elements to a determination of whether a particular set of circumstances rises to the level of a constitutionally prohibited act.

II. PLAINTIFF'S UNNECESSARY RIGOR CLAIM

¶ 19 A prisoner suffers from unnecessary rigor when subject to unreasonably harsh, strict, or severe treatment. This may include being unnecessarily exposed to an increased risk of serious harm. In Bott, we upheld a jury verdict holding prison officials liable for violating a prisoner's rights under article I, section 9 when they failed to provide the prisoner with timely medical attention despite his repeated requests and grievances.²¹ We also noted, however, that not every case of retrospectively inadequate attention to prisoner requests was a constitutional violation. We declared in Bott that a violation of the prohibition on unnecessary rigor must arise from "treatment that is clearly excessive or deficient and unjustified, not merely the frustrations, inconveniences, and irritations that are common to prison life."²² When the claim of unnecessary rigor arises from an injury,...