Norton v. Rodrigues

• Decision Date: 07 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-1784,18-1784
• Citation: 955 F.3d 176
• Parties: Tyler Raymond NORTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael RODRIGUES, SBCC Deputy Superintendent, Defendant-Appellant, Osvaldo Vidal, SBCC Superintendent; Brian Mcdonald, SBCC Director of Security; Steven Silva, SBCC Director of Operations; Christopher Phelps, SBCC Lt. Correction Officer of Inner Perimeter Security; Brian Wozniak, SBCC Correction Officer of Inner Perimeter Security; Jeffrey Alteri, SBCC Sgt. Correction Officer of Assignments; Gregory Bedard, SBCC Lt. Correction Officer of Discipline; John DOE-1, SBCC employee in charge of the Department Disciplinary Unit, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

955 F.3d 176

Tyler Raymond NORTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Michael RODRIGUES, SBCC Deputy Superintendent, Defendant-Appellant,Osvaldo Vidal, SBCC Superintendent; Brian Mcdonald, SBCC Director of Security; Steven Silva, SBCC Director of Operations; Christopher Phelps, SBCC Lt. Correction Officer of Inner Perimeter Security; Brian Wozniak, SBCC Correction Officer of Inner Perimeter Security; Jeffrey Alteri, SBCC Sgt. Correction Officer of Assignments; Gregory Bedard, SBCC Lt. Correction Officer of Discipline; John DOE-1, SBCC employee in charge of the Department Disciplinary Unit, Defendants.

No. 18-1784

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 7, 2020

Stephen G. Dietrick, Deputy General Counsel, with whom Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and the Department of Correction Legal Division were on brief, for appellant.

John McKirachan Pavlos, with whom Law Office of John McKirachan Pavlos were on brief, for appellee.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Thompson and Barron, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This case was brought by Tyler Raymond Norton, who was living in a quasi-protective custody unit in Souza Baranowski Correctional Center ("SBCC") in March 2015 when he was jumped by three fellow inmates. Prior to the attack, Norton told SBCC prison officials, including Appellant Michael Rodrigues, that the leader of a notorious prison gang had threatened his life while robbing him at knife point and that, as a result, he feared for his safety. At the summary judgment stage, the district court held that Rodrigues was not entitled to qualified immunity from the instant lawsuit, which alleges that Rodrigues and other SBCC officials (to whom the district court granted immunity and summary judgment) failed to protect Norton from a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of Norton's constitutional rights. Rodrigues challenges that ruling. Because we find that Rodrigues' challenge rests on factual, rather than legal grounds, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (holding that a district court's denial of summary judgment in a qualified immunity case is not a final, appealable order where, as here, the summary judgment record raises a genuine issue of fact).

A. BACKGROUND

Before turning to the jurisdictional framework that is dispositive here, we take a detour to rehearse pertinent facts from the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Norton, the nonmovant. See Galloza v. Foy, 389 F.3d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 2004).

At all times relevant to this litigation, Appellant Michael Rodrigues served as the Deputy Superintendent for Classification and Treatment at SBCC, a maximum-security prison in Shirley, Massachusetts that houses approximately 1200 incarcerated men at any given time. From August 2012 to May 2013 and from November 2013 until late August 2015,¹ Appellee Norton resided at SBCC under Rodrigues' care and supervision.

1. SBCC's Housing Classification System

As is relevant to Norton's claims and our review of this interlocutory appeal, members of SBCC's incarcerated population are regularly screened for and assigned a "security level," which in turn determines where they can live, work, eat, and exercise within the institution. Security levels (and, by extension, housing, work, and other assignments) are determined by SBCC's classification committee based on certain objective criteria.² The committee "consists of [either] one member or [a] three member board," including a chair person, a correction officer, and an assigned correction program officer. Before the committee reaches a classification decision, the incarcerated person at issue is interviewed by the correction program officer assigned to his case. During the interview, he is encouraged to share any pertinent information that might assist with his classification, including health, family, resolved legal issues, program or educational participation, and known enemies. The committee's classification recommendations are subject to review and approval by the Director of Classification (here, Rodrigues). Incarcerated people have the option to appeal their classification.³

Based on their classification, SBCC residents are then assigned to one of sixteen housing units. Those units fall into the following five categories:

• General Population - Most of SBCC's incarcerated community reside in "General Population" units, where they can leave their cells and travel to work, to the dining hall, and to the gym elsewhere in the facility in accordance with a daily movement schedule.

• Special Housing Unit - The Special Housing Unit is SBCC's protective custody unit, which is a secure location for incarcerated people facing a risk to their health or safety (as determined by prison officials).

• G1 Unit ("G1") - G1 is a 64-cell, quasi-protection housing unit that SBCC describes as "functioning between general population and the Special Housing Unit, SBCC's protective custody unit (SHU)." G1 is reserved for incarcerated people who would have difficulty in General Population for a variety of reasons, including the unpopular nature of the offense that landed them in prison (e.g., sex offenders), "physical weakness," documented conflicts with gang members on the outside or within the facility, drug or other debts, or other safety issues. Individuals housed in G1 are, for the most part, separated from the majority of SBCC's population at meal and recreational time. G1 residents also have the "option" to remain locked in their cells or otherwise limit their range of movement within the Unit. SBCC classification committee members screen incarcerated individuals to determine if G1 is a reasonable alternative to the Special Housing Unit or a prison transfer.

• Health Services Unit - The Health Services Unit provides infirmary care as well as outpatient services. The Unit's staff handle medical screening, physical examinations, lab work, daily sick calls, and emergencies. Incarcerated people must complete a form to request health-care services, except in the case of emergencies.

• Special Management Unit - The Special Management Unit is set apart from the rest of the institution and is used primarily for incarcerated individuals who are awaiting classification (or reclassification) into other units, including "administrative segregation," "protective custody," or "disciplinary detention."

2. Norton's Safety Concerns in General Population

When Norton first arrived at SBCC to serve time for armed robbery, he was housed in General Population. While there, on more than one occasion prior to the assault central to Norton's claims, Norton was threatened by other folks incarcerated at SBCC. On May 15, 2013, for example, Norton refused to "lock into his general population cell" due to what SBCC described as "protection issues" with one or more unspecified incarcerated people to whom he allegedly owed money. Over a year later, on December 22, 2014, Norton was robbed at knife point by three documented gang members, including at least one member of the Gangster Disciples (also known as "GD"), which is a subset of the notorious street and prison gang, Folk Nation. During the armed robbery, Louis Luiz, one of the SBCC Gangster Disciples' leaders, threatened to kill Norton if he ever told anyone about what happened that day.

As Rodrigues tells it, at some point after being robbed and threatened with a deadly weapon in his cell, Norton "feigned a mental health crisis to get himself pulled out of his housing unit and sent to the Health Services Unit." (emphasis added). Norton reported the attack to a mental health professional in the Health Services Unit and, later, to Inner Perimeter Security Officer, Bryan Wozniak. Norton allegedly told Wozniak that he feared for his safety and wanted to be placed in protective custody.⁴ After Norton expressed his safety concern, he was transferred to a temporary protective custody cell in SBCC's Special Management Unit to enable prison officials to determine an appropriate permanent placement for him.

After the attack on December 22, 2014, Norton penned the following letter from his Special Management Unit "To whom it may concern":

Due to my enemy issues with the Boyos and the Folk/GD (I don't know the difference) [t]here is definitely a major issue with placing me on a unit. I would like to know if I could be sent back to my County Jail (Plymouth) to finish the rest of my time. I have no problems with the gangs in my county, and have about 1 year and a half left on my sentence and believe this would be the best way to resolve my situation.

The document was date-stamped by SBCC "December 29, 2014," but it's not clear from the record whether that date reflects when Norton actually sent the letter or when prison officials received it. We do know that Norton remained in temporary protective custody from December 22, 2014 until January 5, 2015.

Crucial to our review, Rodrigues acknowledges receipt of this letter and states that he did not receive any other correspondence from Norton after the events of December 22, 2014. Norton's account, of course, is quite different. Norton claims via an affidavit, dated September 9, 2016 and attached to his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss or (in the alternative) for summary judgment, that he sent "numerous" letters to SBCC officials, including Inner Perimeter Security Officer Christopher Phelps and Brian McDonald (SBCC's Director of Security),⁵ regarding his safety concerns while he was in the Special Management Unit. In a supplemental affidavit, dated September 17, 2017 and attached to Norton's opposition to defendants' renewed dispositive motions, Norton asserts that he expressed ongoing safety concerns in "at least five (5) letters" addressed to Rodrigues, the Inner Perimeter Security team, and others after he was transferred from temporary protective custody in the Special...