Purkey v. Green ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 1, 2006
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WESLEY I. PURKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-3126
(D.C. No. 01-CV-3134-JAR)
LEROY GREEN, Sheriff of (D. Kan.)
Wyandotte County, Kansas; J. B.
HOPKINS, Administrator of
Wyandotte County Jail; FLOYD
GARDNER, Classification
Administrator, Wyandotte County Jail;
HUGH BOND, Major of Security,
Wyandotte County Jail; JONI
“MUMMA” COLE, Program Director,
Wyandotte County Jail; TAMMY
ELLIOTT, Administrative Personnel,
Wyandotte County Jail; DELORES L.
HERRING, Administrative Personnel,
Wyandotte County Jail; (FNU)
DAVIS, Lieutenant/Internal Affairs,
Wyandotte County Jail; (FNU)
PIERCE, Sergeant/Security Personnel,
Wyandotte County Jail; F. ARNOLD,
Security Personnel, Wyandotte County
Jail; MICHAEL DAILEY, Wyandotte
County Jail; KARLA HARRIS;
CHARLES DUNLAY; LOREN
GRIFFIN; MICHELE SESE; TYRONE
DAVIS, Deputy Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In this pro se prisoner civil rights action, Wesley Purkey appeals from a
district court’s summary judgment order. We affirm.
B ACKGROUND
In October 1998, Purkey was booked into the Wyandotte County Jail on
murder and parole-violation charges. He was initially assigned to “F-pod,” the
jail’s maximum custody unit, given the seriousness of the charges, his escape
history, and his criminal history, but later given an “override[ ]” to minimum
custody for good behavior. Dist. Ct. Record (R.) doc. 45 at 2. In December
1998, Purkey submitted several inmate communication forms (ICFs), claiming
that he had been struck by a milk carton thrown by Deputy Sheriff Tyrone Davis
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
and that Davis had later complained about Purkey to inmates, who offered to
“take care of this.” R. doc. 91 at 12. Davis rebuffed the offer, stating “No, the
hole is full now.” Id.
In October and November 1999, a classification technician assisted Purkey
in obtaining photocopies of proposed civil rights complaints. In doing so, the
technician placed a copy of one of the complaints in Purkey’s classification file
and consulted a county counselor regarding copying the other complaint.
Purkey sued the Wyandotte County Sheriff and numerous jail personnel,
alleging, among other things, denial of access to courts, indifference to medical
needs, excessive force, incitement to violence, and retaliation for submitting ICFs
and filing lawsuits. The district court dismissed Purkey’s lawsuit for failure to
state a claim. This court affirmed in part, but reversed in part and remanded
regarding the excessive force and incitement claims and portions of the
indifference and retaliation claims. Purkey v. Green, 28 Fed. Appx. 736(10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2001) (unpublished).
In January or February of 2000, Purkey lost his override to minimum
custody and was moved to F-pod after he became “verbally abusive with the
physician and nurses in the infirmary.” R. doc. 45 at 2. On February 18, 2000,
Purkey was transferred to the infirmary for observation, complaining of stressful
-3-
conditions in F-pod. 1 The following day, Purkey refused to return to F-pod and
was placed in the jail’s B-2 segregation unit.
Because some inmates in B-2 had “flooded their cells by stopping up their
toilets,” R. doc. 45 at 6, the jail administrator, on March 3, 2000, ordered the
“water line to the commode of each cell in B2 . . . turned off 23 hours a day,”
R. doc. 45, Aff. of James Eickhoff, Ex. A. On occasion, inmates had also
“smear[ed] feces on walls and other surfaces in their cells.” R. doc. 45, Aff. of
James Eickhoff at 1. While in the B-2 unit, Purkey filed numerous ICFs,
complaining of unsanitary conditions, no cleaning supplies, the water restriction,
his loss of commissary privileges, and being forced to shower in restraints.
Although jail personnel had informed Purkey that he could leave B-2 at any time
and return to F-pod, Purkey protested, stating that “due to the confrontational and
escalating nature in F-pod, I chose [sic] not to continue to deal with the
violence,” R. doc. 51, Ex. 32. On March 27, Purkey was restrained and carried by
the “S.O.R.T. team” back to F-pod. R. doc. 45 at 4.
1
In an ICF, Purkey noted “extreme problems from inmates who were
involved in the incident stemming from November 31, 1998 - and now I am
having to deal with their gang banger bullies 14 or 15 of them - I have already
had 2 fights with them.” R. doc. 1, Ex. 5.
-4-
The following two days, on March 28 and 29, Purkey submitted ICFs,
stating that he had been “jumped on . . . by several gangbangers.” R. doc. 51, Ex.
73. In an April 4 ICF, Purkey reported that “a sequence of problems with
different gang members is happening which originally stem[s] from the 1st
incident with officer Davis.” Id., Ex. 76. On April 12, Purkey was removed from
F-pod and placed in protective custody. Several weeks later, Purkey was turned
over to the Kansas Department of Corrections after pleading guilty to murder and
aggravated robbery.
Subsequently, Purkey filed another civil rights complaint against the
Wyandotte County Sheriff and numerous jail personnel. The district court
directed the defendants to submit a Martinez report, consolidated Purkey’s two
lawsuits, and appointed counsel for Purkey. After the defendants moved for
summary judgment, Purkey’s attorney withdrew, citing “differences as to how to
proceed.” R. doc. 92 at 1. Purkey filed a pro se opposition to summary judgment.
Therein, Purkey expressly abandoned his medical indifference and excessive force
claims. Consequently, all that remained from Purkey’s first lawsuit were his
claims that Deputy Sheriff Davis had incited other inmates to harm him and that
he suffered retaliation for attempting to file suit against jail employees. Purkey
described the claims from his second lawsuit as deriving from various defendants
-5-
(1) screening his lawsuits before photocopying them, (2) placing a copy of his
lawsuit in his classification file, (3) confining him in the
B-2 unit without due process and in retaliation for submitting ICFs and filing
lawsuits, (4) maintaining unconstitutional conditions in B-2, and (5) forcing him
back to F-pod without regard to his safety. Purkey also sought summary judgment
on several of his claims.
The district court granted the defendants summary judgment and denied
Purkey summary judgment. Purkey appeals.
D ISCUSSION
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standard used by the district court.” Garrison v. Gambro,
Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate “if
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “When applying this standard, we view the evidence
and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.” Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne,
427 F.3d 775, 782 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted).
-6-
Purkey argues that the district court erred in eight respects: (1) weighing
evidence and making credibility determinations; (2) penalizing him for not
complying with local rules; (3) analyzing his due process claim under Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (holding that atypical and significant hardships
imposed against a convicted prisoner implicate due process), rather than Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (holding that punitive conditions of pretrial
confinement implicate due process); (4) concluding that even if confinement in
the B-2 unit violated due process, jail personnel were entitled to qualified
immunity; (5) concluding that the conditions in B-2 did not violate the Eighth
Amendment; (6) concluding that even if Deputy Davis’ conduct constituted
incitement to violence, qualified immunity was available; (7) concluding that even
if jail personnel were deliberately indifferent to Purkey’s safety when they moved
him back to F-pod, qualified immunity was available; and (8) finding no First
Amendment violation in the handling of Purkey’s photocopied legal documents.
We have reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order in light of these
arguments and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons stated by the
district court, and we remind Mr. Purkey of his continuing obligation to make
partial payments until he has paid the filing fee in its entirety, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b).
-7-
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-8-