## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1013 A NTH O NY L. S MITH, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. G IL BERT P ETERS, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Ev ansvill e D ivisi on. No . 3:0 9-cv-10 1-RLY-WGH

—Richar d L . Y oun g, Chief Judge

. S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 4, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 19, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Anth o ny S m i th , an Indi an a sta te pri sone r, fi l ed thi s ci vi l ri ghts sui t w hic h char ges tha tp r i s o n e mpl o y e e s h a d v i o l a t e d the Ei g hth Am e nd

me n tb y f o r c i n gh i m t o wo r ka th a r d l a b o r i n d a n g er o us condi ti ons, and had vi ol ate d the F i rs t Am endm ent b y p en ali zing h im f or qu estioning th e prop riety ofthe w ork ass i gnm ent a nd pre pari ng to sue. H e s eek s dam age s. H e a l so see ks i nj u n c tive r el i ef, but that cl ai m i s m oo t because he’ s be en m ove d to a di ff eren t pri son. The di s-2 N o. 10

- 1013
tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d the co m pla i nt f orf ai l ure to sta te a c l a i m. S m ith w as assign ed to up root tree stu m p s. W orkers on the stum p cre w w er e f or ced, the com pla i nt all ege s ( a n d s i n c e th e c o mpl a i n t wa s d i s mi s s e d o n i t s f a c e , we ta k e i t s a l l e g a t i o n s t o b e t r u e , th o u g h o fc o u r s e wi tho ut vouchi n g for thei r tr uth), to work i n “fre ezi ng co l d” w i th axes, pi ckaxes , and shov el s a nd w ith out havi ng r ecei ved any safe ty i nstr ucti on o r prot ecti ve gea r

— not eve n gl ove s. S tum p-cr ew worke rs ar e a lleged to be at ri sk ofge tti ng hi t bythe bl ad es ofthei r too l s be cause th e h eads o fthe too l s s l i p f ro m thei r hand l es as the pr i soner s hackaway witho ut prop er t ra i ni ng. S m i th deve l o ped bl i st er s f r o m ha ndl i ng th es e he av y to o l s i n the col d w i thout gl ove s. H e fi l ed g r i ev an ce s wi thpr i so n o ffi ci al s com p lai ni ng about the haz ar ds that m em bers ofthe stum p cre w f ace. The pri son eve ntual l y r esponded by t ra nsfer ri ng him to a r ecr eati onalj ob, but al so, he c l ai m s, r eta l i ate d agai nst hi m b y l i m it i nghi s ac ce ss t o the l aw l ibr ar y a nd fi r i ng him fro m hi s ne w j o b o n the pr et ex t th athe was us i ng the l a w l ib r a r y du r i ngthe hours in whi c h he wa s s up posed to be w or ki ng i n the new j ob. The di st r i ctc o urt di smi ss ed th e Ei g hth Am en dm en t c l a i m, i ns o f a r a s i tc o mpl a i ne d a b o utf a i l ur e t o p r o v i de g l o ve s f o r o u t d o o r wo r ki n c o l d we a th e r, o n th e g r o und that Sm i th’ s b list er s were nothi ng m or e than “the usual di sc o m f o r ts o fwi nt er ” r athe r tha n de pr ivati o ns o fthe “mi ni m al c i vi l i ze d m ea su r e o fl i f e’ s ne ce ss i ti es , ” an d br us he d o ffhi s fe aro fda ng er o us wor k i ngc o ndi ti o nsN o. 10

- 1013 3 because i t was, the cour t r ule d, a cl ai m o fem oti onalo r psy ch o l o g i ca l i nj ur y, whi ch i s no t ac ti o nabl e unl es s the r es ul t o fa ph ysic ali nj ur y . 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 99 7e ( e)

. The c o u r td i d n o td i s c u s s th e F i r s tA me n d me n tc l a i m. A lthou gh n o one m uc h li kes to w ork out of doors d uring th e w inter, th e norm al discom fort that su ch w ork i nvol ves does not m ake the w or k crueland unusual p u n ish m en t
. B u t th at is p ro vid ed th at th e w or ke r is proper l y cl othe d. Sm i th does not speci fy the t em peratu r e i n whi chhe was wor k i ngwi th o utg l o ves a nd gotbl i ste rs o n h is h ands but i t was duri ng the winter of20 08- 2009 , and the aver age te m perature at the l oca ti o n o fthe Br an ch vi l l e Co r r ec ti o na l F ac i l i tyi n Indi an a w here h e was i m pri sone d w as onl y 2 9. 6 degr ees Fa h re n h eit in Ja n u ar y (it w as 35 .2 in D ec em b er , 38.8 in Fe b ru ar y , a n d 50 .2 in M ar c h ); on Jan u ar y 1 6 it plunged t o - 7. “T h e E igh th A m en d m en t ‘fo rb id s k n o w in gly co m p ell i nga n i nm at e to pe r f o r m l ab o r tha t i s be y o nd the i nm ate ’ s s tr ength, danger ous t o hi s o r her l i f e o r heal th, o r und ulypai nful

. ’ ” A m bro se v. Yo un g, 474 F. 3d 1070 , 10 75 (8th C ir

. 2007). I t forbi d s forci ng prison ers to “p erform p hy sica l la bor w hich i s beyon d their streng th, end an gers thei r l i ves orhealth, o r causes undu e pai n. ” Ber ry v . B unnell, 3 9 F

. 3d 10 56 , 1 05 7 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( perc ur iam ). Fai l ure to provid e a p ri sone r re quir ed to work out of do o r s wi thmin i m alpr o te ct i ve c l o th i ng, ob vi o us l y i nc l ud i ngg l o v e s , c a n the r e f o r e v i o l a t e the Ei g hth Am e nd

m en t, as co u n tle ss ca se s h av e fo u n d . See , e.g., Knightv. Wi s e m an , 590 F.3d 45 8, 46 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); G illis v . Litsch er,4 N o. 10

- 1013 46 8 F .3d 48 8, 49 3 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); D ixo n v . Go din ez , 11 4 F

. 3d 64 0, 64 2 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); M urp hy v. Wa lk er, 51 F. 3d 714, 72 0- 21 (7t h C ir. 19 95 ); B ibb s v. E arly, 541 F.3d 267, 272 (5th C ir. 20 08 ); Spe nc e rv. Bouc har d, 449 F.3d 72 1 , 7 2 8 ( 6th Cir. 20 06 ); Palm e rv. Johns on , 193 F.3d 346 , 352-53 (5th C ir. 1999). The “ us ua l di sc o m f o r ts o fwi nt er ” to whi chthe dist ri ct j ud ge re f er re d do not i ncl ud e handl i ng hea vy to o l s wi thg l o ve l es s ha nds i n s ubz er o wea the r . Our p ris on sy st em is n otth e g u lag . Sm ith ’ s b l ist er s c ou ld h av e be en cause d by hi s handl i ng the stum p re m ova l tools w ithou t gloves, or cou ld even hav e b een prec urs ors to orco nsequences offrostbi te

— the r eco rd does not sa y . Butthe a l l eg atio ns o fthe c o m pl ainta r e su ffi ci en t t o p r e c l u d e d i s mi s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. Sm ith’s all egation s regard ing the haz ar d ou s w ork envi ro nm ent t o w hi ch he was subj ect prese nt an E igh th A m en d m en t c laim th at is d ist in c tfrom th e c laim w e’ ve j ust been disc ussi ng. There i s a diff er en c e b etwe ene xpe r i en ci nga ctua l pa i n o r i nj ur y, o n the o ne ha nd ( co nc ei vabl y i nc l udi nga “ co ndi ti o n n o t i nj uri o us in its elf b u t like ly to rip en ev en tu a l l y in to a p alp ab le phy si ca l i nj ury, ” a matt erl eft unr es o l ve d i n Robi ns on v. Page, 1 70 F

. 3d 74 7, 7 49 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ) , a nd b eing su bj ecte d to haza rd s m erely th r eaten ed , on th e othe r. B ecau se Sm ith w as tran sferred to anoth er prison b e fore s uc h da ng e r s a s b e i ngs t r uc kb y a n a xe b l a de o c c ur r e d, he co uld notse ek ei theri nj uncti ve re lief or( because “no Feder alci vil a cti on m ay be b ro ught bya pri sone r confi ned i n a j ai l, pri son, o r othe r cor re cti onalf aci l i ty, f o r me nt a l o r e mot i o na l i nj ury su ff e r e d wh i l e i n c us t o dyN o. 10

- 1013 5 wi tho uta p r i o r s ho wi ngo fp hy s i c a l i nj ur y, ” 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 997e ( e) ) co m pensato rydam age s. This l i m i tat i on o n the re l i efava i l abl e in pri sone r sui ts ch ar g i ngv i o l at i o ns o fthe Ei g hth Am en dm en t i s co nst itu tio n ally p er m iss ible

. Zeh ne rv. Tr igg, 133 F. 3d 459, 46 1- 62 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); Ha rris v. G a rner, 21 6 F

. 3d 970 ( 11th Cir

. 20 00) ( en banc) , reinst ati ng 19 0 F

. 3d 1279 , 12 88- 90 (11 th C ir. 19 99 ); D avis v. D is tr ictof Colum bia , 158 F. 3d 1342 , 1346

- 48 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 98)

. But thi s doe s no t m ake actual physi calinj ury “a fi l i ng pre re quis i te f orthe f edera l act i on i tse l f

. ” C alhoun v. D et el la , 319 F. 3d 936, 940 (7th C ir. 2003); see al so Helling v. M cK inn ey, 5 09 U .S. 2 5, 33 (19 93 ); Cass i dy v. Indi ana D ep’ tof

Cor r e ct i ons , 1 99 F.3d 374, 37 6-77 (7th C ir. 20 00 ); A lla h v . Al-H a

f eez , 226 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2000). Pri son o ffi ci al s who re ckl ess l y e xpose a pri sone r to a su b st an tia l risk of a s er iou s p h ys ica l inju ry v i o lat e h is Eighth A m endm ent r i ghts, and ther efor e a re subj ect to thos e r em edi es that ar e no t ba rre d b y secti on 1 997e ( e)

— i nj un cti ve r el i efo fc o ur se ( unl es s as i n thi s ca se a n i nj uncti ve cl ai m is m oo t) but al so nom i nal and eve n ( m ost c ou rt s h av e ru led ) p u n i t ive d am ag es . E .g., Calh oun v. D et el la , sup ra , 319 F.3d at94 0-4 1; H utchins v. M cD aniel s , 51 2 F.3 d 1 93 , 1 98 (5 th C ir. 2 00 7) (p er cu ria m ); M i t ch e l l v. Hor n, 318 F. 3d 523, 53 3 ( 3d Cir

. 20 03) ; Royal v. K a utzky, 37 5 F.3 d 72 0, 7 2 3 ( 8 th C ir. 20 04 ); Tho m pso n v . Ca rter, 284 F.3d 411, 418 (2d Cir. 2002); but se e Ha rris v. G a rner, sup ra ; D avis v. D is tr ictof Colum bia , sup ra , 15 8 F

. 3d at 1348

. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s f ai l ure to address S m i th’ s F i rs t A m endm ent c l ai m was another er ro r. I fthe f acts al l ege d in the com p lai nt are true, w hich has yet to be de ter-6 N o. 10

- 1013

m i ned, he was punis hed f orco m pla i ni ng ab out m i str eat
m ent, and s uch pu ni shm ent i s a n i nfr i ngem ent o fthe f re espeech r i ghts, l i m i ted as theyar e, o fpri son i nm ate s. Th e j ud g men ti s r e v e r s e d a nd the c a s e r e mand ed f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

1- 19- 11