Caldwell v. Warden

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
• Writing for the Court: HULL
• Citation: Caldwell v. Warden, 748 F.3d 1090 (11th Cir. 2014)
• Decision Date: 07 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–11818.,12–11818.
• Parties: Trevis CALDWELL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI TALLADEGA, Unit Manager, Lieutenants, Defendants–Appellees.

748 F.3d 1090

Trevis CALDWELL, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.WARDEN, FCI TALLADEGA, Unit Manager, Lieutenants, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 12–11818.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 7, 2014.

Lindsey Boney, IV, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP One Federal PL, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Trevis Caldwell, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Ramona Albin, John C. Bell, Jenny Lynn Smith, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 1:09–cv–02210–KOB–TMP.

Before HULL, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG,^* Judge, and SMITH, ^** District Judge.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

While incarcerated at FCI–Talladega in Alabama, plaintiff Trevis Caldwell was assaulted and stabbed by his cellmate, Jeremy Pinson. Caldwell brought a pro se Bivens¹ action against three federal prison officials—defendant William Elston, the Unit Manager at FCI–Talladega, and defendants Vernessa Williams and Wilbert Davis,² lieutenants at FCI–Talladega—for their alleged deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm that inmate Pinson posed to plaintiff Caldwell.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the three defendants. After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and having the benefit of oral argument, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Because the defendants moved for summary judgment, we present the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff Caldwell, construing all reasonable inferences in his favor.³

A. Special Management Unit

The events giving rise to this case occurred in the Special Management Unit at FCI–Talladega in Alabama (“SMU”). The SMU is a non-punitive unit for very disruptive inmates who require greater management to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of federal prisons. The SMU houses high security inmates from other prisons throughout the federal prison system.

B. Inmate Pinson

In April 2009, inmate Pinson was housed at FCI–Coleman in Florida. Inmate Pinson had a “history of serious disciplinary infractions which ha[d] not been controlled through the disciplinary process in a High level [federal prison] facility.” Because of inmate Pinson's violent behavior, the unit manager at FCI–Coleman wrote a letter to his prison's warden recommending Pinson's placement in a SMU “to ensure the safety and security of the institution.” To support his written recommendation, the unit manager listed numerous incident reports that inmate Pinson received from 2007 through April 2009, some of which included assaults on inmates and staff that resulted in serious and minor injuries.⁴

The warden at FCI–Coleman approved the request to refer Pinson to the SMU. On August 6, 2009, inmate Pinson arrived at the SMU at FCI–Talladega.

No one disputes that employees at the FCI–Talladega SMU are aware that SMU inmates are sent to the SMU specifically because they have been violent and disruptive at other federal prisons. Indeed, the Bureau of Prisons's SMU policy states that the SMU unit team reviews for behavioral improvement (i.e., compliance with SMU program rules and cessation of violent and disruptive behavior) every 30 days.

As employees of the FCI–Talladega SMU, defendants Elston, Williams, and Davis knew that inmate Pinson's violent past resulted in his placement in the SMU. And, in his declaration, plaintiff Caldwell stated that the three defendants knew of inmate Pinson's “violent past that got him to the S.M.U. placement.” ⁵

C. Plaintiff Caldwell

In June 2009, plaintiff Caldwell was housed at USP–McCreary in Kentucky. After a fight with inmates in the recreation yard, Caldwell was also referred for placement in the SMU. The warden at USP–McCreary recommended Caldwell's transfer to the SMU based on Caldwell's “history of serious and/or disruptive disciplinary infractions.” ⁶

On August 18, 2009, Caldwell arrived at the SMU at FCI–Talladega. Caldwell was assigned to share a cell with inmate Pinson (who had arrived on August 6).

D. Unit Manager Elston's Statement

On Friday, September 4, 2009—shortly after Caldwell was assigned to be inmate Pinson's cellmate at the FCI–Talladega SMU—inmate Pinson told defendant Elston that he did not want a cellmate. According to inmate Pinson, defendant Elston replied, “Kill him. I don't care. I go home at 4:00 p.m.” ⁷

E. Cell Fire on September 9

Sometime before 10 a.m. on September 9, 2009, inmate Pinson started a fire in the cell he shared with plaintiff Caldwell while both men were locked in the cell. Plaintiff Caldwell played no part in starting the fire.

When the cell's fire alarm activated, defendants Elston and Williams, and two other correctional officers, responded. Because the sprinkler system was inoperable, the cell filled with flames and black smoke. The fire was concentrated at the cell's locked door but was also in the cell's light fixture and sink. Plaintiff Caldwell's personal property, including his personal photographs, address book, and legal materials, were also burning inside the cell.

The responding prison personnel handcuffed plaintiff Caldwell and inmate Pinson, removed them from their cell, strip searched them, and placed them in “full chain body restraints.” ⁸ Inmate Pinson freely told defendants Elston and Williams that he set the fire and that Caldwell “had nothing to do with it.” As a result of the fire and the efforts to extinguish it, “a large amount of [plaintiff Caldwell's] personal property items [inside the cell] were either destroyed and/or damaged to the point of being unidentifiable and/or unusable.”

Prison medical staff examined plaintiff Caldwell to assess the injuries he sustained when he was removed from the cell during the fire. The record does not contain the results from this medical assessment. However, the record does indicate that Caldwell injured his knee while exiting the fiery cell.

After plaintiff Caldwell's medical examination, defendant Elston instructed a correctional officer to return Caldwell to the cell with inmate Pinson.

F. Caldwell's Fear of Returning to His Cell

Prior to being returned to his cell, plaintiff Caldwell verbally told defendants Elston and Williams that he “was in fear for his life if he was placed in the same cell with Pinson” and that he could not be returned to the same cell as inmate Pinson. In response, Elston and Williams “smiled [and] shrugged their shoulders” but otherwise ignored Caldwell's safety concern.

Plaintiff Caldwell also verbally told defendant Davis that he feared that his life was in danger if he was returned to the same cell as inmate Pinson. Davis responded by telling Caldwell to “deal with it” but otherwise ignored Caldwell's safety concern.

In a declaration produced in response to Caldwell's complaint, defendant Elston stated, “If inmate Caldwell had expressed any concerns to me about his safety, I would have made sure he was not placed back with his cellmate.” Similarly, defendant Williams stated in a declaration, “If inmate Caldwell had made any statement which would have indicated he was in any danger, he would have been secured away from [inmate Pinson].” And, defendant Davis stated in a declaration, “If inmate Caldwell had expressed any concerns to me about his safety, I would have notified my supervisor, and I would have made sure he was not placed back with his cell-mate unless the concerns were resolved.”

Thus, the defendants acknowledge that they would not have returned plaintiff Caldwell to the cell with inmate Pinson if plaintiff Caldwell had expressed any concerns for his safety. Rather, the defendants contend that plaintiff Caldwell expressed no such concerns. But, at this summary judgment stage, we must accept as true plaintiff Caldwell's sworn statement that he told the defendants that he feared for his safety and his life if he was returned to the cell with inmate Pinson.

G. Lack of Investigation or Risk Minimization

Before returning plaintiff Caldwell to the locked cell with inmate Pinson, neither the defendants nor anyone else investigated how inmate Pinson started the fire, why Pinson started it, whether Pinson could readily endanger Caldwell's life a second time, whether Pinson intended to harm Caldwell in particular or any assigned cellmate in general, whether Pinson was mentally stable, or any other mental-capacity or safety-related matter.

Furthermore, there is no indication that the defendants did anything to assess the items or circumstances that could allow inmate Pinson to harm Caldwell in the future. For example, the record reflects that inmate Pinson had access to an 8.5? shank. And, the record reflects that the cell's sprinkler system did not work and that flammable materials remained in the shared cell even after the fire. Nevertheless, Caldwell was returned to the cell within hours of inmate Pinson starting a fire in that very cell.

H. Inmate Pinson's Attack on September 10

Sometime before 9:00 a.m. on the morning after the fire, plaintiff Caldwell was in his cell reading a book when inmate Pinson placed Caldwell in a choke-hold until Caldwell passed out. When Caldwell regained consciousness, he discovered that he was on the floor and that his hands and feet were bound with fabric. Caldwell was bleeding from his nose and from a gash on his head.

Inmate Pinson held an 8.5? shank, with a handle made from cloth, and yelled through the cell door that he was going to kill Caldwell. After approximately 90 minutes of hostage negotiations with prison staff, inmate Pinson agreed to submit to restraints. Thereafter, prison guards removed Caldwell from the cell.

Medical personnel examined Caldwell. As part of his medical exam, Caldwell received a CAT scan for possible head trauma and an evaluation for possible sexual assault. Caldwell had puncture wounds and cuts on his head and chest; contusions on his scalp, forehead, nose,...