Appeals Court Judge: Yes, SCI Rockview inmate can sue for "inhumane", "deplorable" conditions

On May 31st of 2015, Briaheen Thomas, an inmate at SCI Rockview, received a visit from a friend who handed him a bag of M&Ms. A prison guard saw him eat an M&M and chase it with soda and so, thinking he had ingested contraband, handcuffed and confined him to a "dry cell" for over a week. 

The defendants in the suit are Eric Tice, Mark Garman, Timothy Miller, and Heather Halderman, employees of SCI Rockview.

The court document notes:

A “dry cell” is a cell that lacks water—all standing water has been drained from the toilet, the room’s water supply has been shut off, and the sink and toilet have been capped to prevent inmate access. An inmate may be placed in a dry cell when prison staff have observed the inmate attempt to ingest an item of contraband or they learn that the inmate is attempting to introduce contraband into the prison. 

Dry cells are used to closely observe the inmate until natural processes 3 allow for the ingested contraband to be retrieved. To this end, dry cells lack all linens and moveable items other than a mattress, inmates’ clothes are exchanged for a simple smock, and their movements are carefully controlled to prevent them from concealing or disposing of any retrievable contraband. 

To expedite his release from the dry cell, Thomas was offered laxatives, which he accepted. Over the next four days, Thomas had twelve bowel movements. No evidence of any contraband was found in any of Thomas’s bowel movements. Prison staff also x-rayed Thomas on June 1. The x-ray revealed no contraband.

After agreeing to both X-Rays and laxatives, Thomas was kept in deplorable and inhumane conditions for four days and twelve bowel movements. Then, five more days just because. The court document describes the conditions of his confinement as such:

While in the dry cell, Thomas was only allowed to wear a paper-thin smock, which did not fit him. The smock was not replaced for a clean one for the duration of his time in the dry cell (over nine days). Despite repeated requests, and in violation of prison policies, he was repeatedly denied a blanket. As a result, he felt cold throughout his stay in the dry cell. His mattress was soiled and did not have a slip covering, sheet, or pillow.

The entire nine days that Thomas was in the dry cell, a light on the wall shined on him. Not only was he subject to constant illumination, but he was also continuously handcuffed in a painful position. In particular, his right hand was tightly handcuffed to the metal frame of the bed in a manner that prevented him from even standing and required him to sleep with his right arm outstretched above his head. Although he was given brief periods of respite, his right arm pained him at length, both during and after his dry-cell stay.

Most egregiously, Thomas was repeatedly denied any means of cleaning himself, including after bowel movements and before meals. Despite his requests, and in violation of prison policies, he was never provided toilet paper, sanitizing wipes, or the opportunity to even wash his hands.

Provided with the uncontested description of such squalor, we are reminded of the realism of both Dickens and Sinclair but no tale of fiction is this. Can we seriously dispassionately determine that a prisoner laying in filth and excrement deserves our judicial sanction?

Only the prison’s Program Review Committee (“PRC”) and facility manager are authorized to determine when to release an inmate from administrative confinement, including from a dry cell, the court document notes. Mark Garman was both a member of the PRC and the facility manager at SCI-Rockview at the time. He has since been promoted to Superintendent.

After that period had passed, the Program Review Committee (PRC) inexplicably continued his confinement for five more days. Thomas filed suit in federal court, to which the defendants moved for summary judgement. While the magistrate judge recommended denying this motion, U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W Brann granted it anyway. 

On January 15, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed this decision, affirming a grant of summary judgement related to the conditions of confinement at SCI Rockview. This means he will be allowed to pursue a civil rights suit. 

Judge Matthew Brann was also admonished in February by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, who said he abused his discretion in determining compensation related to a natural gas pipeline case.

Without laxatives, food takes 36 hours to go from one end to the other, with 5 days at the most. There is no excuse for keeping him in these conditions for 9 days, especially after he had submitted to X-Rays and taking laxatives. 

This is basic human knowledge that does not require an advanced degree. Though they partially reversed Judge Brann's ruling, two of the three appeals court judges thought the matter of whether 9 days was justified was a question best left to a jury. The third judge, Joseph Greenaway Jr., remarked in his dissent:

Here, Thomas was housed in a dry cell in utterly undignified conditions. On that, the record is clear. As to whether Defendants were personally involved in these conditions, the record reveals a genuine dispute of material facts that precludes summary judgment. Qualified immunity, moreover, is of no aid to Defendants given the ample precedent deeming similar conditions as violative of the Eighth Amendment. I would vacate in full the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and remand to the District Court for trial on both Thomas’s duration and conditions claims. Given my divergence of viewpoint, I dissent from the Majority’s disposition of Thomas’s conditions claim.