Opinion ID: 721475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McMillian States a Fourteenth Amendment Claim

Text: 43 Tate contends that Count One does not state a Fourteenth Amendment claim. A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is 'clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all. Jordan, 38 F.3d at 1564 (quoting Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991)). Thus, before we address whether Tate, Ikner, and Benson violated clearly established law in allegedly causing McMillian's confinement on death row, we examine McMillian's allegations to determine whether he asserts a cognizable constitutional claim. Id. 44 Tate argues that McMillian cannot state a Fourteenth Amendment claim simply by showing that he, Ikner, and Benson subjectively intended to punish McMillian by causing his pretrial detention on death row. According to Tate, McMillian states a Fourteenth Amendment claim only if the pretrial detention was not rationally related to a legitimate non-punitive governmental objective. Tate, Ikner, and Benson argue that McMillian's transfer to death row was rationally related to the legitimate objective of ensuring McMillian's safety. 45 Due process prohibits a state from punishing a pretrial detainee at all until he is lawfully convicted of a crime. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096, 106 S.Ct. 1492, 89 L.Ed.2d 894 (1986). To determine whether a condition of pretrial detention amounts to punishment, we must decide whether the condition is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is incident to some legitimate governmental purpose. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. at 1873. Contrary to Tate's contention, a showing of an intent to punish suffices to show unconstitutional pretrial punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538 & n. 20, 99 S.Ct. at 1873-74 & n. 20; Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 104 (5th Cir.1996) (stating that expressed intent by officers to punish pretrial detainee shows unconstitutional pretrial punishment); Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079, 1085 (4th Cir.1993) (same), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1049, 114 S.Ct. 702, 126 L.Ed.2d 668 (1994). An intent to punish may be inferred when a condition of pretrial detention is not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental goal; for example, an intent to punish may be inferred when the condition is excessive in relation to the legitimate purpose assigned to it. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. at 1874; Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 104. 46 The district court found that McMillian had presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether Tate, Ikner, and Benson conspired to detain McMillian on death row for the purpose of punishing him. To the extent that Tate, Ikner, and Benson argue that McMillian was transferred for the purpose of ensuring his safety, they simply take issue with the district court's conclusion that McMillian has raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the purpose of the transfer was punishment. As we have explained, we do not address on this appeal challenges to the district court's factual determinations. See section IV.B. 7 To the extent that Tate, Ikner, and Benson argue that a pretrial detainee may be subjected to adverse 8 conditions of confinement for the purpose of punishment so long as there is a legitimate alternative reason for the confinement, regardless of whether the legitimate reason in fact motivated the defendants' actions, they are simply wrong. An express purpose to punish establishes unconstitutional pretrial punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39 & n. 20, 99 S.Ct. at 1873-74 & n. 20; Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 104; Hause, 993 F.2d at 1085. 9 Here, the district court concluded that McMillian had presented sufficient evidence of a purpose to punish to satisfy his burden on summary judgment. Therefore, we hold that McMillian states a claim for unconstitutional pretrial punishment. 47 2. Clearly Established Law Prohibited Placing a Pretrial Detainee on Death Row for the Purpose of Punishment 48 Qualified immunity shields Tate, Ikner, and Benson from the burdens of trial and from liability unless transferring McMillian to death row for the purpose of punishment violated clearly established law. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149. Tate, Ikner, and Benson argue that the law governing whether conditions of confinement amount to pretrial punishment was not clearly established at the time of McMillian's transfer. 49 When McMillian was transferred to Holman's death row, clearly established law in this circuit prohibited imposing on a pretrial detainee conditions of detention that amount to punishment. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 535, 99 S.Ct. at 1872; Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1572. The issue for qualified immunity purposes, however, is not whether the due process right not to be punished before conviction was clearly established. The proper inquiry is whether it was clearly established that transferring a pretrial detainee to death row for the purpose of punishment violates due process. 50 To be clearly established, the law that the government official allegedly violated must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government actors, in the defendant's place, that 'what he is doing' violates federal law. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We have found no case with facts similar to McMillian's allegations. The pre-existing case law prohibiting conditions of pretrial detention that amount to punishment involved conditions such as double-bunking, mail restrictions, search policies, Bell, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, overcrowding, unsanitary food, and lack of adequate medical care, Hamm, 774 F.2d 1567. 51 Nevertheless, for the law to be clearly established, a court need not have found the very action in question unlawful; what is essential is that the action's unlawfulness be apparent in light of pre-existing law. Jordan, 38 F.3d at 1566. We do not view the absence of a case factually similar to the extraordinary allegations in this case as an indication that the law was not clearly established that confining a pretrial detainee on death row to punish him is unconstitutional. Bell 's prohibition on any pretrial punishment, defined to include conditions imposed with an intent to punish, should have made it obvious to all reasonable officials in Tate, Ikner, and Benson's place that holding McMillian on death row to punish him before he was tried violated McMillian's due process rights. If McMillian's allegations are true, Tate, Ikner, and Benson violated McMillian's clearly established constitutional rights. Therefore, they are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 52 Tate contends that his purpose in causing McMillian's detention on death row may not be considered in determining whether he is entitled to qualified immunity. According to Tate, Harlow 's objective reasonableness standard precludes any inquiry into a defendant's subjective intent, even when intent is an element of the underlying constitutional claim. Thus, Tate argues that we must ignore the existence of a genuine issue as to whether defendants transferred McMillian to death row for the purpose of punishment. The only question for purposes of qualified immunity, Tate contends, is whether a reasonable officer, knowing what Tate knew about the Conecuh County break-in, could have thought it lawful to request McMillian's transfer. (Appellant Tate's Br. at 38.) In other words, Tate contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity if some reasonable official, acting with no intent to punish McMillian, could have thought it lawful to transfer McMillian to death row in light of the break-in. 53 Our precedent compels us to reject Tate's contention. Like every other circuit that has considered the issue, we have held that intent or motivation may not be ignored when intent or motivation is an essential element of the underlying constitutional violation. Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995). 10 A purpose to punish is an essential element of a pretrial punishment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, Tate, Ikner, and Benson's purpose must be considered in this case, just as discriminatory intent must be considered when an equal protection violation is asserted, see Ratliff v. DeKalb County, Ga., 62 F.3d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1995); Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1524, and intent or motivation must be considered when certain First Amendment claims are asserted, see, e.g., Tompkins, 26 F.3d at 607 (alleged retaliatory transfer of government employee); Losavio, 847 F.2d at 648 (alleged interference with speech); Musso, 836 F.2d at 743 (alleged content-based censorship at school board meeting). When Tate, Ikner, and Benson's purpose to punish is considered, there is no question that their alleged conduct violated clearly established law. 11 54