Young v. Quinlan

Decision Date03 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-5845,90-5845
Citation960 F.2d 351
PartiesKenneth McClure YOUNG, II, Appellant, v. J. Michael QUINLAN, Patrick Keohane, Kenneth Moritsugu, Dr. Paulo Depetrillo, Wallace Cheney, Walter Wells, Leroy Blanks, Charles Lewis, Robert Zimany, Stan Ahlin, Kenneth Kaufman, Jerry Blackburn, John Steppie, Richard Wagner, Steven Bilger, Frank Woods, W.L. Garrison, George Thomas, William Radloff, Vernon London, Charles Turnbo, Lt. Conrad, Officer Spangler, H. Wiegand, John Doe Defendants 1-21, and Other Unknown Defendants. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Kenneth McClure Young, II, pro se.

James J. West, U.S. Atty. and Frederick E. Martin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lewisburg, Pa., for appellees.

Before: BECKER, NYGAARD, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Kenneth McClure Young II, formerly a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in his suit for monetary damages against various federal prison officials.SeeBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619(1971).We conclude that the district court erred in two respects: First, by dismissing the complaint as to defendantWilliam Radloff, for lack of adequate service of process; and second, by granting summary judgment against Young on his claims under the Eighth Amendment that, a) prison officials failed to protect him from attacks by fellow inmates, and b) further, that the conditions of his confinement were inhumane.We conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Young's other claims, correctly dismissed certain defendants for failure to state a claim, and correctly denied Young's motion for class certification.Accordingly, we will affirm the district court order in part, but since we will reverse in part, we must remand the cause for further proceedings.

I.FACTS

The events concerned here have been told, in part, in our earlier decision, Young v. Kann, 926 F.2d 1396(3d Cir.1991).1We nonetheless find it necessary to detail the wretched conditions to which Young was subjected while confined at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.Although appellees contest Young's allegations, they would, if proven, paint a picture of prison life that violates the United States Constitution.

For counterfeiting $42 in U.S. obligations, Young was sentenced to five years imprisonment.After serving six months of his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution at Seagoville, Texas, he was transferred to a higher security prison, the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.The abuse he allegedly suffered there during his first five months of imprisonment forms the gravamen of his suit.

Two days after he arrived at Lewisburg, Young was interviewed by two Segregation Reviewing Officers, Captain George Thomas, and Richard Wagner, the case manager coordinator at Lewisburg.At the interview, Thomas and Wagner decided that Young should be transferred to a lower security prison, and while he awaited transfer be placed in the Segregation Housing Unit ("SHU").Thomas and Wagner based their decision on Young's files, his medical status, and his youthful and diminutive stature.2Young requested that he be placed in protective custody until his transfer.Thomas, however, told Young that would not be necessary, because he would ensure that Young was protected in the SHU.

During the late night and early morning hours of April 21-22, Young's violent ordeal at Lewisburg began.Young's cellmate began asking Young, repeatedly, to have sex with him.After Young refused, his cellmate threatened Young and attempted to climb onto his bunk.At one point an officer making his rounds approached the cell.Young's cellmate told Young that if he said anything to the officer he would be killed.After the officer left, Young's cellmate "started slapping [him] demanding sex."Young was able to ward off his cellmate's sexual advances that night.

The next morning, Young handed an inmate-orderly a note addressed to Officer Steven Bilger about the incident.Bilger then came to Young's cell and told Young that he could not be moved because of his medical condition.After Bilger left, Young's cellmate began "spitting in plaintiff's face, slap[ping him] up side his head and shoving [him] into the wall."An inmate-orderly saw the incident and alerted Bilger.Bilger again came to Young's cell and Young again asked to be moved.Bilger then told Young that he should write a letter asking to be moved and that he would take it to Lieutenant London.Young's cellmate told Young that if he wrote anyone a letter he would be killed.Young wrote the letter and handed it to the inmate-orderly to give to Bilger.Young was then moved to a new cell.

One week later, Young's new cellmate assaulted him and demanded sex.Young again warded off his cellmate's sexual demands.The new cellmate also threatened to kill Young if he told anyone of the incident.That night, Young wrote a letter to Warden Keohane, Lieutenant London, and Captain Thomas telling them of the incident, and requesting protective custody.Prison officials did nothing.On May 15, Young's cellmate dunked Young's head in a toilet in an attempt to convince Young to have sex with him.Young wrote another letter to Keohane, Thomas and London telling them of the incident and again he requested protection.Prison officials again did nothing.

On May 16, Young filed an administrative request for protective custody.Three months later the Bureau of Prisons, by Charles Turnbo, denied his request.On May 16, Young also explained the head-dunking incident to an unnamed officer and once again requested that he be moved.The officer told Young that he could not move him because of his medical condition, but that he would inform SHU Lieutenant Conrad 3 and Officer Spangler of the situation.Prison officials again did nothing.

On May 29, Young's cellmate "pulled a razor blade on him threatening to kill him if he did not decide real soon to become his wife and have sex with him."On May 30, when Young's cellmate was showering, Young wrote a letter to London and Thomas and handed it to Officer Diamond.4Shortly afterwards, Officer Marshall 5 told Young that he had delivered the note to Spangler and that Spangler had decided not to move Young.Young, in despair that he had no official relief, told Marshall that he was not going to let his cellmate reenter the cell.When guards attempted to deliver Young's cellmate to the cell, Young then began pounding the door with a milk crate.Young was transferred to a different cell, but given an incident (disciplinary) report.

On June 1, at a prison disciplinary hearing before John Steppie and McDermott, 6 Young "informed them of the events that had been taking place and his unsuccessful attempts at getting moved."According to Young, McDermott told Young that "protection was not one of his duties, that plaintiff had better learn to get along because the officials at Lewisburg do not like cry babies."

Young further alleges that on June 2, 1988, his cellmate told him that he wanted Young to leave the cell permanently.The two then argued, and his cellmate punched Young in the stomach and face.His cellmate then "grabbed a razor blade that was attached to a toothbrush, placed it to plaintiff's throat, coerced him to his knees and forced plaintiff into an act of fellatio."After the incident, his cellmate told Young that if he did not move out of the cell the next day, the inmate would "rape his anus."That night, Young wrote a letter to Keohane, Thomas, London, and Wells in which he explained the incident and asked to be moved.

On June 3, when officials took no action, Young began pounding on his cell door to attract attention.An unnamed officer approached the cell, and Young told him of his need to be moved.The officer told Young that he would inform Lieutenant Radloff of the situation.The officer returned ten minutes later and told Young that Radloff was not going to move him.Young continued banging on the door.Thirty minutes later Radloff came to Young's cell.After telling Radloff of the incident, Radloff stated that "[y]ou can bang on the door all day, I'm not going to move you.You got moved three days ago and I'm not going to move you again."Young continued pounding on his cell for two hours and then stopped.Young's cellmate then told him, "if you don't get moved you know what's going to happen."He then told Young to stop up the toilet and flood the cell.Young did so and flooded the cell.

As a result, prison officials placed Young in a "dry cell" for the next 96 hours, from June 3 to June 7.A "dry cell" has no toilet, no running water, and in Young's case, prison officials did not even provide him with toilet paper.Young alleges that he was neither allowed to wash before eating, nor shower during these four days.Throughout this period, he suffered from diarrhea.

Young attempted to explain to Radloff why he flooded the cell, however, Radloff interrupted Young and told him that, "he had better not hear a peep out of him, for if he did, he would chain plaintiff down to the steel slab indefinitely, and that plaintiff better not ask the officers for anything because it would be like whistling in the wind."At 6:00 p.m., on June 3, Young requested a blanket from Officer Troutman 7 because he was cold.Troutman, however, told Young that Radloff had ordered him not to give him anything.Young explained to Troutman that he had tested HIV positive and did not want to catch a cold.Troutman then gave Young a blanket and told Young not to tell anybody who gave it to him.

After the shift of officers changed at midnight, Young asked the officers on duty if he could leave the dry cell in order...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
461 cases
  • Green v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • August 31, 2017
    ...process claim, and constitutional claims premised on the denial of his grievances. It is undisputed that a prisoner's placement in solitary confinement does not, in itself, violate the Constitution. See Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 364 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded on other grounds by statute, Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq., as recognized in Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 71 n.7 (3d Cir. 2000). Under certain circumstances, however, a state...
  • Everett v. Donate
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • October 14, 2010
    ...in the District Court proceedings to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact in this case. While we agree with Everett that he has "a right to be protected from violence inflicted by other inmates," Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 361 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-71, as recognized in Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000), Everett pointed to no evidence suggesting...
  • Naranjo v. Coulehan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • October 31, 2024
  • Niblack v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 07, 2011
    ...right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. "The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any punishment which violates civilized standards and concepts of humanity and decency." Young v. Ouinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 364 (3d Cir. 1992), superseded on other grounds by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner does not lose this protection despite a prison sentence, for "the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined...
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: the prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for "deliberate indifference".
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Northwestern University, School of Law Man, Christopher D.
    • Septiembre 22, 2001
    ...cruel and unusual punishment...."). (67) Richardson v. Penfold, 839 F.2d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 1988); Holland v. DeBruyn, No. 3:95-CV-525RM, 1997 WL 284813, at *8 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 1997). (68) Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362 (3d Cir. 1992); McGill v. Duckworth, 944 F.2d 344, 349 (7th Cir. 1991); Roland v. Johnson, 856 F.2d 764, 770 (6th Cir. 1988) (warning came from victim's mother); Richardson, 839 F.2d at 396; Holland, 1997 WL 284813, at96 (2d Cir. 1981). (82) Ruiz v. Johnson, 37 F. Supp.2d 855, 929 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev'd and remanded sub nom. Ruiz v. United States, 243 F.3d 9421 (5th Cir. 2001). (83) LaMarca, 995 F.2d at 1533. (84) Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 363 n.23 (3d Cir. 1992); see Riley v. Jeffes, 777 F.2d 143, 146-48 (3d Cir. (85) Young 960 F.2d at 354. (86) Ruiz, 37 F. Supp.2d at 928; see also Roland v. Johnson, 856 F.2d 764,...
  • 24-d-2 Examples of Legal Claims Brought by Lgbt Prisoners
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual
    ...U.S. 825, 830, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1975, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 821 (1994). 217. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 849, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1985, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 833 (1994). 218. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362-63 (3d Cir. 219. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362-63 (3d Cir. 1992). 220. Taylor v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 77, 84 (6th Cir. 1995). 221. Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 91-92 (7thEd. 2d 811, 821 (1994). 217. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 849, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1985, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 833 (1994). 218. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362-63 (3d Cir. 1992). 219. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362-63 (3d Cir. 220. Taylor v. Mich. Dept. of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 77, 84 (6th Cir. 1995). 221. Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 91-92 (7th Cir. 1996). 222. Greene v. Bowles, 361 F.3d 290, 292 (6th...
  • 30-f-2 Segregation and Protective Custody
    • United States
    • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual
    ...tried six different cellmates); Falls v. Nesbitt, 966 F.2d 375, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that guard who failed to protect gay prisoner from a cellmate who ultimately stabbed him was not deliberately indifferent). But see Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 362-63 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that the rights of a prisoner described as small, young, and effeminate may have been violated when he was subjected to sexual assaults by other prisoners after officials in the federal prison where...