Rogers v. Fair
| Decision Date | 05 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1902,89-1902 |
| Citation | 902 F.2d 140 |
| Parties | Ralph ROGERS, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Michael FAIR, Defendant, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Paula J. De Giacomo, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom James M. Shannon, Atty. Gen., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.
Donald A. Harwood, with whom Hrones and Harwood, were on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Circuit Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal by various former officials of the Massachusetts prison system 1 from the partial denial of summary judgment and qualified immunity in a Sec. 1983 suit brought by a state prisoner who alleges that he was denied a prison furlough because his furlough sponsors were Jewish. Because the prisoner has presented no evidence that statements allegedly made about the religious background of his sponsors influenced the furlough decision, we grant summary judgment for the defendant officials.
Ralph Rogers was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1966. While serving his sentence in the Massachusetts prison system, Rogers participated in the prison furlough program. Throughout the 1970s, Rogers successfully completed ten furloughs, most of which were sponsored by his family. He completed his last furlough on December 22, 1979. At issue in this case is the denial of a furlough for Rogers, scheduled for February 8, 1980, after preliminary approval by the Commissioner of the Department of Correction. In late January, 1980, defendant Vose, the deputy superintendent of the prison where Rogers was confined, told Rogers that a "hold" had been put on the furlough pending investigation by the Security Management Team into the transfer of $9,750 from Rogers to his furlough sponsors, the Ransenbergs. 2 At this time, Vose also allegedly asked Rogers why he was sending money to "Jews" who were not related to him and made other statements about the religious background of the Ransenbergs. Vose also informed Rogers that another reason for the furlough "hold" was that Rogers had recently been denied commutation (and thus any hope of parole or early release) and was therefore more of an escape risk. 3
At the end of May, 1980, the investigation was concluded and a report issued that recommended that Rogers' furlough be reinstated. Defendants Vose and Ronald Amaral, upon review of the report, both recommended that furlough privileges be reinstated. At about the same time the report was completed, a first degree murder convict escaped while on furlough. That escape, and the ensuing bad publicity, forced the prison system to re-evaluate the furlough program. The re-evaluation resulted in closer scrutiny of furlough applications from first degree murderers. Part of this additional scrutiny was the creation of a special independent panel (Murder I Review Panel) to review furlough applications from first degree murder prisoners. Rogers' furlough application was reviewed by this panel. It recommended that the Commissioner of Corrections (Hogan) deny Rogers' furlough application for a number of reasons including: the serious nature of the offense underlying his conviction (the brutal murder of a woman tinged with sexual overtones); Rogers' alcohol problems (10 alcohol related disciplinary reports in prison); the suitability of the furlough sponsor (including the money transfers and the fact that Mrs. Ransenberg kept a gun under her bed); and the denial of commutation. The Commissioner denied the application based on the panel's recommendation and reasoning.
Rogers brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Sec. 1985 alleging that he was denied the February, 1980 furlough arbitrarily in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution and for the discriminatory reason that his sponsors were Jewish.
The defendants, all participants in the review of Rogers' furlough application, 4 brought a motion for summary judgment and a motion for qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion on all issues except whether Rogers was denied furlough because his sponsors were Jewish. The defendants bring this appeal claiming that they are immune from the remaining allegation because they are state officials 5 and that summary judgment should have been granted.
In the posture that this case is before us, the scope of the appeal is very narrow. Appellants ask us to reverse the denial of summary judgment because there is no evidence that their conduct could have violated the rights of the plaintiff even if those rights were clearly established. Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F.2d 124, 132 (1st Cir.1988). The only question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient facts to survive summary judgment on the issue of whether the religion of the sponsors was improperly considered in the denial of furlough. Because plaintiff, the nonmoving party, has failed to meet normal summary judgment standards, we reverse and grant summary judgment to the defendants.
Generally, we do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of a motion for summary judgment because the denials are not final judgments. In the context of Sec. 1983 suits, we have made an exception when the defense of qualified immunity (an interlocutory appeal that we must entertain) is combined with the motion for summary judgment.
We have jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of qualified immunity on grounds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the factual predicate of a qualified immunity claim. In such a review, we must examine the discovered facts regarding defendants' conduct relevant to the immunity claim and, applying normal summary judgment principles, determine whether a genuine issue does or does not exist concerning qualified immunity.
Unwin, 863 F.2d at 132; See also, Rodriguez v. Comas, 888 F.2d 899, 901 (1st Cir.1989); Yerardi's Moody Street Restaurant v. Board of Selectman, 878 F.2d 16, 17 (1st Cir.1989). In such a situation, the court examines, as we have here, the entire record developed on summary judgment. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d at 901.
A motion for summary judgment must be granted if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). To succeed, the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's position. Having done so, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of an issue of fact that could affect the outcome of the litigation and from which a reasonable jury could find for the opponent. Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189, 191 (1st Cir.1989) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. TRUCK DRIVERS'UNION LOCAL 42, Civil Action No. 92-10242-PBS.
...judgment, the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's position." Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir. 1990); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 "Once the moving party has prop......
-
Davis v. Dawson, Inc.
..."`[E]vidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his [or her] favor.'" Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir.1990) (citation omitted). Furthermore, it is particularly apropos to the case at bar, to acknowledge that credibility issues ar......
-
Mass Cash Register, Inc. v. Comtrex Systems Corp.
..."To succeed, the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's position." Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir.1990). "If this is accomplished, the burden then `shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of an issue of fact ......
-
Arthur D. Little Intern., Inc. v. Dooyang Corp.
...judgment, the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's position." Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir.1990); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Once the moving part......