Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02410/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2410

___________

Clayton James Hanks, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

David Prachar, Jail Administrator; *

Brad Kenney; Penny Wheatman, and * [PUBLISHED]

numerous St. Louis County, *

Minnesota, Jail staff, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2006

Filed: August 4, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Former Minnesota inmate Clayton James Hanks appeals the district court’s

adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hanks sued for

injunctive relief and damages against St. Louis County Jail (Jail) Administrator David

Prachar, Brad Kenney, and Penny Wheatman. He claimed Eighth Amendment and

due process violations based on incidents that he alleged occurred when he was a

pretrial detainee in 1998 and 1999: he was placed in four-point restraints, chained

to a wall in a “rubber room,” forced to shower in waist chains and shackles, and

Appellate Case: 05-2410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074838
-2-

denied hearings before being punished. He also alleged that he pleaded guilty to then

pending criminal charges only to escape the abuse. 

We conclude that the district court erred by ignoring Hanks’s request, in his

preservice challenge to the denial of appointed counsel, for permission to resubmit

his complaint with a correction as to the capacity in which he was suing defendants.

Cf. Thornton v. Phillips County, Ark., 240 F.3d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(while original complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state claim, plaintiff’s

objections to magistrate’s report should have been treated as motion for leave to

amend complaint). We further conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deny

Hanks’s subsequent motion for leave to amend. As one reason for the denial, the

court cited prejudice to defendants from the delay, but defendants--who on appeal

indicate they were not served with the motion to amend--were not directed to respond

to the motion, and they readily admit that Hanks had sued them in their individual

capacities in another lawsuit filed around the same time. See Roberson v. Hayti

Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; under liberal

amendment policy, delay alone is not reason to deny leave, and burden of proving

prejudice is on party opposing amendment). 

We agree with the district court that Hanks’s requests for injunctive relief are

moot because he is no longer incarcerated at the Jail, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d

1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985), and that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review

exception does not apply here, see Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 n.7 (8th

Cir. 1999) (discussing exception). 

As to the damages claims, however, we find that summary judgment was

improperly granted. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir. 2001)

(standard of review). Prachar’s affidavit and the Jail records--which support many

of Hanks’s verified complaint allegations, see Roberson, 241 F.3d at 994-95 (verified

complaint is equivalent of affidavit for summary judgment purposes)--create a

Appellate Case: 05-2410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074838
-3-

genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants punished Hanks (age 17

during most of the period at issue) by using one- to four-point restraints for long

intervals when he was also locked down, and by periodically confining him in the

padded unit. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-38 (1979) (pretrial detainees

may be subjected to restrictions so long as they do not amount to punishment; absent

showing of express intent to punish, determination generally turns on whether

alternative purpose to which restriction may rationally be connected is assignable for

it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to that purpose); A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst,

56 F.3d 849, 854 (8th Cir. 1995) (pretrial detainees’ conditions-of-confinement

claims come under more protective Fourteenth Amendment; due process standard

applied to juvenile pretrial detainees should be even more liberally construed).

Incidents of property destruction are arguably constitutionally valid reasons for

restraining Hanks for short periods when he was already locked down, to prevent

further damage. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 540 (steps to maintain security and order do not

amount to unconstitutional punishment). But long periods of in-cell restraints would

not be justified by such property destruction, by the staff’s fears of Hanks due to his

mere threats, or by Hanks’s improper and excessive phone calls. See id. at 539 &

n.20 (if restriction or condition is not reasonably related to legitimate goal, court

permissibly may infer that purpose is punishment, and retribution and deterrence are

not legitimate nonpunitive government objectives). Finally, the Jail’s restraint policy

on its face is consistent with the standards announced in Bell, but there are

trialworthy issues as to the application of the policy to Hanks. 

We agree with Hanks that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), likely did

not apply, given that he had already served his sentence on the 1998 charges when he

filed the instant lawsuit, see Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 413 n.1 (10th

Cir. 2004) (suggesting Heck does not apply when plaintiff is no longer in custody for

offense); and that Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), does not apply to pretrial

detainees, see Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 17 (1st Cir. 2005). While the record

shows that Hanks either waived a hearing or pleaded guilty when charged with

Appellate Case: 05-2410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074838
-4-

disciplinary offenses, it does not reveal what process was provided when the

decisions were made to otherwise keep him in restraints. 

Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the claims for

injunctive relief, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the claims for

damages, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2410 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/04/2006 Entry ID: 2074838