Clark v. Coupe
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-2310 |
| Parties | *Antoine CLARK, as personal representative for Angelo Clark, Appellant v. Robert COUPE, DOC Commissioner; Perry Phelps; David Pierce; Major Jeffrey Carrothers; Captain Burton; Captain Rispoli; Captain Willy; Dr. William Ray Lynch; Dr. Paola Munoz; Dr. David Yunis; Rhonda Montgomery ; Susan Mumford; Stephanie D. Johnson; Connections Community Support Programs Inc; Stefanie Streets; Stephanie Evans-Mitchell; Carol Vodvarka; Carol Vandrunen; Lezley Sexton *(Amended pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 2/1/22) |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Dwayne J. Bensing [ARGUED], Susan L. Burke, American Civil Liberties Union, 100 West 10th Street, Suite 706, Wilmington, DE 19801, Chad S.C. Stover, Barnes & Thornburg, 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellant
Ryan T. Costa [ARGUED], Kenneth L. Wan, Office of Attorney General of Delaware, Delaware Department of Justice, 6th Floor, 820 North French Street, Carvel Office Building, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellee
Peter M. Slocum, Lowenstein Sandler, One Lowenstein Drive, Roseland, NJ 07068, Counsel for Amicus Appellant National Disability Rights Network
Daniel Greenfield, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, MacArthur Justice Center, 375 East Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, Counsel for Amicus Appellant Roderick & Solange, MacArthur Justice Center
Laura L. Rovner, Tempest Cantrell (law student), Chris Nafekh (law student), Katie Scruggs (law student), University of Denver, Civil Rights Clinic, 2255 East Evans Avenue, Suite 335, Denver, CO 80208, Counsel for Amicus Appellants Richard Morgan and Dan Pacholke
Brian Biggs, DLA Piper, 1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Amicus Appellant Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry Psychology and Medicine
Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
Angelo Clark, a prisoner diagnosed with manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia
, brought an as-applied claim alleging his months-long placement in solitary confinement violated his constitutional rights.1
The District Court dismissed the claim on qualified immunity grounds, finding Clark failed to allege the violation of a clearly established right. We must disagree. Clark alleged prison officials imposed conditions they knew carried a risk of substantial harm and caused him to suffer debilitating pain that served no penological purpose. Because these allegations trigger established Eighth Amendment protection, we will reverse the grant of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings.
The District Court dismissed Clark's conditions of confinement claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In reviewing the dismissal, we accept all sufficiently pled allegations as true. Mammana v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 934 F.3d 368, 372 (3d Cir. 2019). Clark's allegations are summarized as follows:
While an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (JTVCC) in Delaware, Clark was placed in solitary confinement on or around January 22, 2016. Following an incident at mealtime involving another inmate, prison officials moved Clark to the Secure Housing Unit (SHU). App. 66, ¶ 50. By 2016, Clark had been treated for schizophrenia
and bipolar disorder at the prison for at least ten years, a fact of which the prison officials were aware. App. 59, ¶ 5. Despite having few disciplinary "points" on his record and no security classification meriting solitary confinement, Clark remained in the SHU for seven months. App. 66, ¶ ¶ 50, 51.
Inside the SHU, Clark was alone in his cell except for three one-hour intervals per week. The SHU cells are approximately eleven by eight feet with solid doors and two four-inch-wide windows, one of which faced the hallway. App. 64, ¶ 39. The cell lights were on from approximately 6 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., which meant they were off for approximately six hours a day. Meals were delivered without human contact through a slot in the door. App. 59, ¶ 8.
Solitary confinement meant Clark was deprived of all opportunities to engage in "normal" human interaction; he was not allowed to work and prohibited from participating in educational programs or religious services. Id. , ¶ 7. He was permitted only four phone calls and four visitors per month. App. 64, ¶ 40.
The JTVCC's policy regarding inmates in the SHU is that they must "earn their way out" by exhibiting appropriate behavior. App. 69, ¶ 68. While in isolation, Clark would "yell and bang on the door to get the attention of the [Department of Corrections] officials." Id. , ¶ 69. Prison officials considered these outbursts and Clark's inability to "calm[ ] down" to be disciplinary incidents and would punish him by extending his stay in the SHU. When Clark would question why he remained in the SHU for "months and months," prison officials would put him in the "naked room," an isolation cell where he was given an open smock for clothing. App. 67, ¶ 57.
For the seven months, Clark was trapped in a "vicious cycle" where his mental illness would cause behavior that was punished by conditions that furthered his mental deterioration. App. 61, ¶ 13. Clark's extended stay in the SHU worsened his mental illness and caused lasting harm. As a result of the isolation, Clark experienced "increased hallucinations, paranoia, self-mutilation, sleeplessness, and nightmares." App. 60, ¶ 12.
Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Corrections (DOC) Richard Coupe authorized Clark's placement in the SHU. JTVCC Warden David Pierce, who had the authority to veto and re-classify an inmate's housing status, kept Clark in the SHU for seven months despite knowing of his mental illness. According to the complaint, the DOC Policy Manual requires prison officials to "identify those prisoners whose conditions would be contrary to confinement in segregations, including prisoners with serious mental illness." App. 69-70, ¶ 72. Clark posits Commissioner Coupe and Warden Pierce failed to abide by the Manual's requirement to consider his mental illness in determining the cause of "the alleged rule violations" or the "appropriateness of sanction or the conditions or duration of the sanctions."2 App. 70, ¶ 73.
Clark further alleges defendants Commissioner Coupe and Warden Pierce knew of the American Correctional Association (ACA) study on the effects of solitary confinement on seriously mentally ill inmates, the results of which were published in March 2016—two months after Clark entered the SHU and five months before he was released. The ACA recommended prisons implement measures to ensure the isolation would not exacerbate an inmate's mental illness.3 App. 72, ¶ 84. Warden Pierce participated in the ACA study in 2015. The study's report singled out Warden Pierce, stating that he is not "open to change in regards to restrictive housing objective and classification regarding the mentally ill," and cited his authority "to over-ride decision[s] on classification and/or mentally ill treatment decisions." App. 75, ¶ 94.
The complaint avers the ACA study, the "other prior lawsuits" against the JTVCC, and the prisons officials' "familiarity with their own policy and practice" provided the DOC defendants with direct notice of the "extreme adverse effects" of holding seriously mentally ill inmates like Clark in solitary confinement.4 App. 73, ¶ 86.
Clark sued JTVCC prison officials, including Commissioner Coupe and Warden Pierce, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged numerous constitutional violations that purportedly arose from his seven-month stay in the SHU. He accused the defendants of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, providing inadequate medical care also in violation of the Eighth Amendment, conspiring to and engaging in retaliation against his mental illness in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, and placing him in solitary confinement in violation of his due process rights. The prison officials moved to dismiss Clark's claims.5 App. 78–83.
Parsing the Eighth Amendment claims, the District Court permitted Clark to proceed on allegations that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he was in solitary confinement and that his placement in the SHU was in retaliation for being mentally ill. After discovery, these claims went to trial and the jury reached a verdict in favor of the defendants. According to the verdict form, Clark failed to prove he was deprived of adequate medical care while in solitary confinement or that he was put there "because of" his mental illness. App. 723.
The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the conditions of confinement claim that we address now. In his initial complaint, Clark alleged that—as a mentally ill inmate—the conditions of solitary confinement placed him at risk for serious substantial harm, and the prison's practice of placing inmates with known mental illness in the SHU is done with deliberate indifference to the "serious mental health implications of long term confinement in isolation." App. 79, ¶ 113. Given the enhanced risk of substantial harm, Clark alleged this practice as applied to him constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Following the magistrate's recommendation, the District Court dismissed the conditions of confinement claim on qualified immunity grounds. The court concluded the law did not support Clark's claim "that housing a mentally ill inmate in solitary confinement for long periods of time violates a clearly established Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment." App. 4 (citing App. 108). Accordingly, it ruled the prison officials were immune from suit. This appeal addresses that ruling.
Before addressing the propriety of the dismissal, however, we must address whether Clark is legally barred from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Gibson
-
Brandt v. Cirillo
... ... A short ... period of lockdown with resulting isolation, without more, is ... not a serious deprivation. Clark v. Coupe , 55 F.4th ... 167, 183 (3d Cir. 2022) (“Despite the threat of harm ... posed by isolation, we recognize that solitary ... ...
-
Talley v. Clark
... ... Eighth Amendment proscribes the infliction of cruel and ... unusual punishment. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. Prison ... conditions are cruel and unusual if they deprive inmates of ... basic human needs and life's necessities. Clark v ... Coupe , 55 F.4th 167, 179 (3d Cir. 2022) (citations ... omitted); Tillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility , ... 221 F.3d 410, 417-18 (3d Cir. 2000). An inmate challenging ... the conditions of his confinement must show both that the ... deprivation was objectively serious and ... ...
-
Rivera v. Redfern
...the offense occurred' gave the prison officials ‘fair warning' that their conduct violated [the plaintiff's] Eighth Amendment right.” Clark, 55 F.4th at 181 (quoting L.R. v. Dist. of Philadelphia, 836 F.3d 235, 247 (3d Cir. 2016)). “To determine whether such ‘fair warning' existed, we searc......