The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and vacated in part a district court ruling granting qualified immunity to state correction officers accused of violating an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment during some transport rides.
Appeals Court Judge Doris Pryor stated in vacating part of the lower court ruling that any reasonable jury could conclude that defendant/appellee officer Christopher Price violated the rights of Indiana Department of Correction inmate Kevin Smith by refusing to buckle him into the transport van when he couldn’t do it himself.
In June 2019, Smith was driven from the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to an outside hospital for a medical appointment and subsequent treatments.
On the first occasion on June 13, Smith was restrained in handcuffs with no ability to buckle himself into the van. Smith alleged that Price refused to buckle Smith’s seatbelt. While on the road, a different officer slammed the brakes, causing Smith to fall to the ground and break his collarbone, according to court documents.
A week later, Smith was driven to and from the hospital for surgery by different correctional officers.
On that trip, officers Mark Lamb and Benjamin Rilenge buckled Smith in and placed him in a secure box inside the van. On the way back, Smith was buckled into the back of the van and not in the box. During the drive back, Smith complained of feeling nauseous (due to a combination of anesthesia, hunger and heat in the van) and said the officers refused to turn on the air conditioning or roll down the windows.
Smith also said the officers purposely drove on a bumpy lane on the highway and over railroad tracks to make Smith uncomfortable, according to court documents.
The inmate said the officers’ conduct was motivated by a grievance he had with a different officer.
The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting qualified immunity to Price because Smith failed to offer binding precedent in support of his argument.
The district court also granted qualified immunity to Lamb and Rilenge, stating that Smith failed to present binding precedent to prove the officers subjected him to a “rough ride” on the highway and over the railroad tracks, according to court documents.
In vacating the lower court’s ruling on Price, the circuit court concluded that Smith presented sufficient evidence to support both elements of the deliberate indifference test of his Eighth Amendment claims against the officer.
According to the court, Smith adequately asserted that that he was at risk of serious harm by being erratically driven in the prison van without a seatbelt and that Price was aware of that risk but disregarded it.
In affirming the district court’s ruling on Lamb and Rilenge, the circuit court found that while a reasonable jury could conclude that Lamb intentionally drove in a way to inflict pain on Smith, thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights, existing law does not “squarely govern” his conduct. The same goes for Rilenge.
A Fourth Circuit ruling Smith referenced to support his argument is “factually distinguishable” from the conduct in his own case because the ruling involves an inmate who was driven recklessly but was not buckled. Smith did not specifically allege that Lamb drove recklessly and did not contest that he had a seatbelt on.
Smith’s argument fails to prove that Lamb and Rilenge were given sufficient notice to understand that their conduct “ran the risk of violating” Smith’s Eighth Amendment rights, according to the circuit court.
The circuit court stated that, if Smith’s allegations are true, Lamb and Rilenge’s conduct is deeply troubling; however, that’s not enough to have put the officers on notice that they were violating Smith’s constitutional rights.
Judge Kenneth Ripple concurred in part and dissented in part, concluding that the district court’s judgment should be reversed in its entirety as it relates to Lamb and Rilenge. Smith clearly showed that the officers knew he was in pain on the ride but ignored his pain and laughed at him, according to Ripple.
This ruling, he said, relies too heavily on Smith not finding a case that exactly aligns with his circumstances and not the broader infliction of pain imposed by the officers, which is a constitutional violation.
The case is Kevin Smith v Christopher Price et al, 25-1041.
This article was first published by The Indiana Lawyer.
