Opinion ID: 399874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unsafe And Unsanitary Conditions of Confinement

Text: 26 In an earlier incarnation of this case, we affirmed a finding that conditions at Angola shock(ed) the conscience and flagrantly violated basic constitutional requirements as well as applicable state laws. Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977). Now we are called upon to determine whether those conditions violated clearly established law. To this end, we must look to the law as it existed at the time of the alleged violations, i.e., up to and including 1971. 27 In poring through the volumes of the Federal Reporter, we have found at least one pre-1971 Fifth Circuit opinion which suggests that conditions such as those at Angola might violate the constitutional rights of inmates. In Sinclair v. Henderson, 435 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1970), an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the conditions of his confinement were so unsafe and unsanitary as to constitute extreme maltreatment and a violation of constitutionally protected rights. In Sinclair, this Court held that the plaintiff had indeed set forth a valid claim and we cited to several opinions which also held that an inmate's right to safe, humane and sanitary conditions of confinement had a constitutional dimension. 11 28 Sinclair was directed specifically to conditions in the Louisiana prisons, but it was a brief opinion in which we merely suggested that conditions such as those at Angola might violate constitutionally protected rights. Sinclair was an early example, a mere hint of what would only later become a clear jurisprudential trend. Therefore, we would be reluctant to find that Sinclair in and of itself clearly established an inmate's right to safe and sanitary conditions of confinement. 29 However, even if the constitutional dimensions of an inmate's rights to safe and sanitary prison conditions had not yet been clearly established in 1971, we should recognize that the decisions to be found in the Federal Reporter are not the only source of law governing the actions of state prison officials. We must consider the fact that the District Court specifically found that conditions at the facility violated applicable state fire, safety, and health regulations. 12 We are therefore confronted with what appears to be a question of first impression in this Circuit. We must determine whether 1983 defendants are entitled to the protections of a qualified immunity when there has been a violation of clearly established state law. 30 In treating this question, it is important to consider the vitally important compensatory aspects of the § 1983 cause of action as well as the policy objectives which prompted the courts to develop the qualified immunity defense. Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so as to provide compensation for citizens who suffer deprivations of rights secured by federal law. The Act imposes liability upon every person who, under color of state law or custom, 'subjects or causes to be subjected' any citizen of the United States ... 'to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'  Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 635, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1407, 63 L.Ed.2d 673, 684 (1980). 31 The statute itself does not explicitly mention an immunity defense.  § 1983 creates a species of tort liability that on its face admits of no immunities. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417, 96 S.Ct. 984, 988, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). However, the Supreme Court has chosen to construe § 1983 as incorporating and allowing for a qualified immunity, a defense which the Court read into the statute so that public officials would be free to exercise a measure of discretion without fear of exposure to personal liability. Procunier v. Navarette, supra, 434 U.S. at 562, 98 S.Ct. at 859; Wood v. Strickland, supra, 420 U.S. at 321, 95 S.Ct. at 1000; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 241, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). 32 The Supreme Court has been careful to limit the immunities it has created, noting that its ... decisions conferring qualified immunities are not to be read as derogating the important societal interest in compensating the innocent victim of governmental misconduct. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1415, 63 L.Ed.2d 673, 693-694 (1980). Owen reminds us that when an official immunity is granted, a victim of unconstitutional state action is left uncompensated. Therefore, it is important to limit the immunity defense to those cases where a defendant has acted in reasonable good faith and within the scope of his official discretion. Where the defendant official has not acted in reasonable good faith, he is not entitled to an immunity, for ... it is not unfair to hold liable the official ... who should know he is acting outside the law. Butz v. Economou, supra, 438 U.S. at 506, 98 S.Ct. at 2910, 57 L.Ed.2d at 916. 33 In this case, we are asked whether an official who violates clearly established state law can be said to have acted in reasonable good faith. This Court's many opinions discussing the qualified immunity defense have made it clear that where an official's belief in the lawfulness of his actions is unreasonable, qualified immunity is not available. E.g. Barker v. Norman, supra; Clanton v. New Orleans Parish School Board, supra; Dilmore v. Stubbs, supra; Bogard v. Cook, supra. (E)ven an official who acts in the sincere subjective belief that his actions are proper will lose his qualified immunity if those actions contravene 'settled, indisputable law.'  Dilmore v. Stubbs, supra at 968. 34 We believe that prison ... officials are charged with knowledge of their own prison regulations. Chavis v. Rowe, 643 F.2d 1281, 1289 (7th Cir. 1981) and that they may not take solace in ostrichism. Id. If an official's conduct contravenes his own state's explicit and clearly established regulations, a subjective belief in the lawfulness of his action is per se unreasonable. We therefore find that insofar as the conditions of confinement at Angola contravened clearly established state law, the responsible officials' belief in the lawfulness of those conditions was per se unreasonable and the defendants are not entitled to claim an immunity based on reasonable good faith. 13 To hold otherwise would be to encourage official ignorance of the law. 35 We of course recognize that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege a deprivation of a federally protected right in order to set forth a prima facie case, Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980); violation of state law alone does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983. Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287 (6th Cir. 1980). We believe that our conclusion regarding the immunity defense in this case is entirely consistent with this well established principle. The § 1983 cause of action in this case is based upon the fact that the federal constitutional rights of these inmates were violated. 14 At this juncture, the only question before the court is whether the defendant officials are entitled to the special protections of a qualified immunity. We hold that when a state official violates the constitutional rights of a citizen, and in so doing also violates clearly established state law which enforces those rights, the defendant official is not entitled to an immunity which is based upon reasonable good faith. 15