Goguen v. Allen, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Goguen v. Allen, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/57

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13- 2278

ROBERT GOGUEN,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

DAVI D ALLEN, J ESSI CA ALMEI DA, DARLENE BUGBEE, J AMES FRENCH,

EDDI E J ACQUES, J ENNI FER GI LBLAI R, MARGARET KELLY, CRAI G MEUNI ER,KEI TH PLOURD, MI CHAEL RI ZZO,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s,

COREY SWOPE, SHAWN MAGUI RE, GARY CRAFTS, THERESA BROWN,J ULI E HAYDEN, J EFFREY J ACQUES,

Def endant s.

___________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

___________________

Bef oreLynch, Chi ef J udge,

Ri ppl e* and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

___________________

Pet er T. Mar chesi , wi t h whom Cassandr a S. Shaf f er andWheel er & Ar ey, P. A. , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Mi chael J . Waxman f or appel l ee.

* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/57

2

Mar ch 12, 2015


3/57

3

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Robert Goguen i s a f ormer

pr et r i al det ai nee at t he Somer set Count y J ai l ( SCJ ) . He

br ought t hi s acti on al l egi ng t hat var i ous cor r ecti onal of f i cer s

at SCJ vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s under t he Fi r st , Ei ght h, and

Four t eent h Amendment s by i nf l i ct i ng puni shment on hi m wi t hout

due pr ocess of l aw and by r et al i at i ng agai nst hi m f or f i l i ng

gr i evances agai nst member s of SCJ s st af f . The def endant

of f i cer s and admi ni st r ator s moved f or j udgment on t he pl eadi ngs,

summar y j udgment on t he mer i t s, and al so summar y j udgment on t he

basi s of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. The di st r i ct cour t grant ed summar y

j udgment t o several def endant s who had not par t i ci pat ed

per sonal l y i n t he al l eged vi ol at i ons. Wi t h r espect to t he

r emai ni ng def endant s, t he cour t concl uded t hat t her e wer e

genui ne i ssues of mat er i al f act concer ni ng t he def endant s

act i ons and mot i vat i ons t hat pr ecl uded summary j udgment . These

r emai ni ng def endant s t i mel y appeal ed.

We concl ude that t he def endants appeal must be

di smi ssed f or want of appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on. The def endant s

ar gument s on appeal t ake i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual

assessment s and do not pr esent a pur e i ssue of l aw f or t hi s

cour t s consi der at i on. Consequent l y, f ol l owi ng our hol di ngs i n

Cady v. Wal sh, 753 F. 3d 348 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , and Penn v.


4/57

4

Escorsi o, 764 F. 3d 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , we cannot ent er t ai n t he

def endant s appeal .

I.

A.

Bet ween Mar ch and December 2011, Mr . Goguen was

det ai ned at t he SCJ awai t i ng hi s t r i al on pendi ng char ges i n

st at e and f eder al cour t s. From Mar ch 15, 2011, unt i l J une 23,

2011, t he SCJ housed Mr . Goguen i n i t s E- pod, a gener al

popul at i on ar ea i n whi ch i nmat es ar e al l owed some f r eedom of

movement . I n cont r ast , SCJ s A- pod, whi ch houses i nmat es i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, i nmat es i n di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on,

and i nmat es who ar e cl assi f i ed as maxi mum secur i t y, i mposes

si gni f i cant l y gr eat er r est r i cti ons. Mr . Goguen s al l egat i ons

cent er on hi s r epeat ed pl acement i n A- pod, ost ensi bl y f or

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. We t her ef or e di scuss, i n some

det ai l , t he condi t i ons of conf i nement i n A- pod.

I nmat es i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on endur e a

si gni f i cant l y r est r i ct i ve envi r onment . Whi l e i n admi ni st r at i ve

segr egat i on, i nmat es ar e al l owed out of t hei r cel l s f or one hour

per day, f i ve days per week, f or r ecr eat i on. Recr eat i on t akes

pl ace i n a caged ar ea t hat i s appr oxi mat el y f i ve f eet wi de by

t en f eet l ong. I nmat es i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on l eave


5/57

5

t hei r cel l s t o shower t hr ee t i mes per week; each i nmat e

gener al l y i s al l owed t en t o f i f t een mi nut es t o shower . Once a

week, i nmat es i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on ar e al l owed out of

t hei r cel l s t o make a t el ephone cal l .

Accor di ng t o t he def endant s, any i nmat e housed i n A-

pod, whet her pl aced t her e f or admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, f or

di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on, or because of t hei r maxi mum- secur i t y

cl assi f i cat i on, ar e st r i p sear ched ever y t i me t hey ent er or

l eave t hei r cel l s. Al l cel l s i n A- pod ar e sear ched at l east once

per day, compared t o cel l s i n E- pod, whi ch are searched on a

mont hl y basi s. Addi t i onal cel l sear ches al so may be conduct ed

when SCJ st af f members r ecei ve i nf ormat i on t hat an i nmat e

possesses cont r aband. When a cel l sear ch i s conduct ed, t he

i nmat e housed i n t hat cel l i s st r i p sear ched pr i or t o bei ng

r emoved f r om t he cel l .

When an i nmate i s t aken t o admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on,

al l of t he i nmat e s pr oper t y i s put i nt o a bag and t aken t o t he

pr oper t y r oom. I f an i nmat e i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on

r equest s hi s l egal mat er i al s, ar r angement s ar e made t o pr ovi de

t he l egal mat er i al s t o t he i nmat e when t he pr oper t y of f i cer i s

on dut y. When an i nmate i s pl aced back i n gener al popul at i on,

t he i nmat e s pr oper t y i s r et ur ned by the pr oper t y of f i cer .


6/57

6

Pl acement i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on i s r evi ewed

wi t hi n sevent y- t wo hour s by t he cl assi f i cat i on super vi sor . SCJ

pol i cy al so requi r es t hat , wi t hi n t he same t i me f r ame, an i nmat e

be gi ven not i ce of t he r eason f or hi s pl acement i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on and of t he dat e and t i me that t he

commi t t ee wi l l hol d a hear i ng t o r evi ew t he admi ni st r at i ve-

segr egat i on pl acement . Anot her r evi ew of admi ni st r at i ve-

segr egat i on st atus i s done wi t hi n seven days (ever y Fr i day) t o

determi ne i f cont i nued pl acement i s needed; r evi ew can be

per f or med by any day shi f t commander .

1. June 23 Disciplinary Charges

The i nci dent s r el evant t o Mr . Goguen s cl ai ms begi n on

J une 23, 2011, when Of f i cer J enni f er Gi l bl ai r searched

Mr . Goguen s cel l i n E- pod f or an envel ope. Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r

asked Of f i cer Cr ai g Meuni er not t o l et Mr . Goguen upst ai r s whi l e

she was searchi ng t he cel l . Mr . Goguen was al l owed t o wat ch t he

cel l sear ch f r om downst ai r s. Based on t he conf i gur at i on of t he

SCJ , however , t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat one act ual l y

cannot wat ch a cel l sear ch f r om downst ai r s. The def endant s

di sput e whet her t he di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y coul d have r eached

t hi s concl usi on based on t he evi dence bef or e i t . Of f i cer

Gi l bl ai r s sear ch uncover ed commi ssar y i t ems i ncl udi ng one


7/57

7

pl ast i c soap di sh, one bar of soap, one pl ast i c bowl , one whi t e-

col or ed shower shaver , and one bot t l e of shampoo. I t i s

undi sput ed t hat , due t o a l ack of f unds, Mr . Goguen coul d not

have pur chased t hese i t ems; consequent l y, Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r wr ot e

a di sci pl i nar y r epor t and a not i ce of i nf r acti on f or a vi ol at i on

of C04 of t he SCJ I nmat e Di sci pl i ne Pol i cy, Gi vi ng, Recei vi ng,

or Swappi ng. 1 Mr . Goguen mai nt ai ns t hat t her e was no l egi t i mate

r eason t o sear ch hi s cel l f or an envel ope because l egal

envel opes are suppl i ed f or f r ee by t he commi ssary.

Accordi ng t o Of f i cer Meuni er , Mr . Goguen r esponded to

t he sear ch of hi s cel l by ar gui ng and swear i ng at hi m. Of f i cer

Meuni er t her ef or e wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y r epor t concer ni ng

Mr . Goguen s conduct , i n whi ch he char ged Mr . Goguen wi t h a

vi ol at i on of B24, I nt er f er i ng, and B12, [ P] r ovocat i on. 2

Mr . Goguen deni es t hat he ar gued wi t h or swore at t he of f i cer s

i nvol ved i n t he sear ch of hi s cel l ; i nst ead, he mai nt ai ns t hat

Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r yel l ed and cur sed at hi m. Mr . Goguen cont ends

t hat t hese char ges wer e f al sel y br ought by Of f i cer s Meuni er and

1 See R. 56- 11 ( SCJ Pol i cy- I nmat e Di sci pl i ne) at 72; R. 45- 18

( SCJ Di sci pl i nar y Repor t dat ed 6/ 23/ 11) at 1.

2 R. 45- 20 ( SCJ Di sci pl i nar y Repor t dat ed 6/ 23/ 11) at 1.Al t hough t he di sci pl i nar y repor t i dent i f i es Pr ovocat i on as avi ol at i on of pol i cy B- 12, Pr ovocat i on act ual l y cor r espondst o B- 13. R. 56- 11 ( SCJ Pol i cy- I nmat e Di sci pl i ne) at 71.


8/57

8

Gi l bl ai r . Not abl y, Mr . Goguen at t r i but es Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r s

act i ons t o t he f act t hat , j ust bef or e t he sear ch, he had been a

wi t ness f or anot her i nmat e and wr ot e a r epor t agai nst Gi l bl ai r

f or her mi sconduct . . . or har assment . 3 Fol l owi ng t hi s

i nci dent , Mr . Goguen was pl aced i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on i n

A- pod on or der of t hen- Ser geant Kei t h Pl our d. 4

A non- def endant of f i cer , Of f i cer Duchar me, was

assi gned t o i nvest i gat e t he gi vi ng- r ecei vi ng- swappi ng char ge and

spoke t o Mr . Goguen on t he day of t he i nci dent . He i nf ormed

Mr . Goguen of t he al l eged vi ol at i on and asked f or Mr . Goguen s

si de of t he st ory. Of f i cer Ducharme pr ovi ded Mr . Goguen a

not i ce of i nf r acti on, whi ch i nf or med hi m of t he char ge.

Mr . Goguen admi t t ed that t he i t ems f ound i n hi s cel l wer e not

i ssued t o hi m, but cl ai med t hat t hey ei t her wer e l ef t i n t he

cel l , gi ven t o hi m by anot her i nmat e, or l ef t behi nd i n t he

shower ; he cl ai med t hat he was unaware t hat he coul d not have

t hem.

3 R. 83 (Goguen Dep. ) at 47.

4

Ser geant Pl our d now has been promot ed t o Li eut enant . However ,we shal l r ef er t o hi m by hi s r ank at t he t i me t he al l egedact i ons t ook pl ace.

Mr . Goguen mai nt ai ns t hat , as a r esul t of t he sear ch conduct edon J une 23 and hi s subsequent t r ansf er t o A- pod, some of hi sl egal paper s went mi ssi ng. He has not subst ant i at ed t hi sal l egat i on t hr ough any sworn st atement .


9/57

9

Of f i cer J ames Fr ench was assi gned t o i nvest i gat e t he

i nt er f er i ng- pr ovocat i on char ge. He suppl i ed Mr . Goguen wi t h a

not i ce, i nf ormed Mr . Goguen of t he charge, and asked f or hi s

si de of t he st or y.

The st andar d not i ce i nf or ms i nmat es t hat t hey wi l l

r ecei ve an oppor t uni t y t o respond or t o expl ai n t he al l eged

vi ol at i on t o a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng of f i cer wi t hi n seven days;

t he hear i ng of f i cer consi der s whet her t he i nmat e i s gui l t y and

det er mi nes t he appr opr i at e sanct i on. The not i ce f ur t her st at es

t hat t he i nmat e has t he r i ght t o cal l wi t nesses and t o quest i on

t hem, pr ovi ded t he wi t nesses ar e i dent i f i ed and t he quest i ons

ar e pr esent ed t o t he hear i ng of f i cer pr i or t o t he hear i ng dat e.

Not i ces and r epor t s of i nf r act i ons ar e f or war ded t o

Speci al Pr oj ect s Of f i cer Gar y Cr af t s. Of f i cer Cr af t s r evi ews

each mat t er and t hen det ermi nes how t he char ge shoul d pr oceed.

For i nst ance, he may det ermi ne that t he charge shoul d be

changed, di smi ssed, or st eer ed t owar d an i nf or mal r esol ut i on.

He al so may r ef er t he mat t er f or f ur t her i nvest i gat i on or f or a

di sci pl i nar y hear i ng. Of f i cer Cr af t s r ef er r ed bot h of

Mr . Goguen s J une 23 i nf r act i ons f or di sci pl i nar y hear i ngs.

Mr . Goguen i dent i f i ed hi s wi t nesses by descr i pt i on and cel l

l ocat i on, but not by name. He al so di d not put i n wr i t i ng t he


10/57

10

quest i ons t hat he want ed wi t nesses t o answer . As a r esul t ,

nei t her Of f i cer Cr af t s, nor t he hear i ng of f i cer , pur sued any

wi t ness st atement s on Mr . Goguen s behal f .

A hear i ng was conduct ed on J ul y 1 by Of f i cer

Eddi e J acques. At t he hear i ng, Of f i cer J acques hear d

Mr . Goguen s t est i mony, vi ewed st i l l phot os, r evi ewed t he

of f i cer s i nci dent r epor t s, and f ound Mr . Goguen gui l t y of

Gi vi ng, Recei vi ng, or Swappi ng, f or whi ch he r ecei ved a ver bal

r epr i mand. Of f i cer J acques al so f ound Mr . Goguen gui l t y of

I nt er f er i ng and Pr ovocat i on, f or whi ch he r ecei ved a ver bal

r epr i mand and a $10 f i ne. Of f i cer Eddi e J acques st at ed i n hi s

r epor t s t hat he had assessed zer o days of di sci pl i nar y

segr egat i on. Mr . Goguen appeal ed t he deci si on concer ni ng

i nt er f er i ng and pr ovocat i on t o t he admi ni st r at or of SCJ ,

Maj or Davi d Al l en, but t he deci si on was af f i r med.

Whi l e t hese pr oceedi ngs were ongoi ng, Mr . Goguen

st ayed i n A- pod. Hi s pl acement f i r st was r evi ewed by non-

def endant Li eut enant Campbel l on J une 26, 2011.

Li eut enant Campbel l det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d r emai n i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, and Mr . Goguen recei ved a not i ce

t hat he woul d be kept i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on and hi s

pl acement agai n woul d be revi ewed on J ul y 1, 2011.


11/57

11

On J ul y 1, 2011, a hear i ng was hel d t o revi ew

Mr . Goguen s admi ni st r at i vesegr egat i on st at us. Li eut enant

Dar l ene Bugbee was t he hear i ng of f i cer , and Of f i cer Fr ench and

non- def endant Of f i cer Wel sh ser ved as commi t t ee member s.

Mr . Goguen at t ended and test i f i ed at t he hear i ng, af t er whi ch

t he commi t t ee det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d remai n i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on unt i l a cl assi f i cat i on commi t t ee

coul d r evi ew hi s secur i t y st at us.

On J ul y 6, 2011, anot her admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on

hear i ng occur r ed. Thi s t i me, Li eut enant Bugbee was t he hear i ng

of f i cer ; Ser geant Pl our d and Of f i cer Meuni er served as commi t t ee

member s. Fol l owi ng t he hear i ng, at whi ch Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed,

t he commi t t ee det ermi ned t hat he shoul d be r emoved f r om

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on because cl assi f i cat i on had r evi ewed

Mr . Goguen s st atus and had det er mi ned t hat he st i l l shoul d be

cl assi f i ed as a medi um- secur i t y i nmat e. Mr . Goguen t her ef or e

was r el eased f r om admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on and r et ur ned to E-

pod, where he remai ned unt i l he was t r anspor t ed t o t he Penobscot

Count y J ai l on J ul y 10, 2011.

2. July 15, 2011 Incident

Af t er Mr . Goguen r etur ned t o SCJ , Mr . Goguen agai n was

pl aced i n A- pod on J ul y 15, 2011, as a r esul t of a di sput e


12/57

12

concer ni ng hi s bunk assi gnment . Dur i ng cel l r eassi gnment s,

Mr . Goguen was assi gned an upper bunk. Mr . Goguen, however ,

t ol d Of f i cer Mi chael Ri zzo t hat he needed a l ower bunk. When

Of f i cer Ri zzo i nqui r ed of t he medi cal depar t ment whet her

Mr . Goguen had a bot t om- bunk r est r i ct i on, t he medi cal depar t ment

r esponded t hat he di d not . The par t i es gi ve vast l y di f f er ent

account s of t he event s t hat f ol l owed. Accor di ng t o t he

def endant s, 5 Of f i cer Ri zzo or dered Mr . Goguen t o move to the

upper bunk, but Mr . Goguen r ef used and t ol d Of f i cer Ri zzo t o

send hi m t o A- pod, whi ch Of f i cer Ri zzo di d. Of f i cer Ri zzo al so

wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y r epor t and a not i ce of i nf r act i on f or a

vi ol at i on of B11, Or der , Ref usi ng t o obey. 6 I n hi s deposi t i on,

Mr . Goguen deni ed t hat he had been order ed t o t ake an upper

bunk; he t est i f i ed t hat , af t er Of f i cer Ri zzo cal l ed t he medi cal

depar t ment and di scover ed t hat Mr . Goguen di d not have a medi cal

r est r i ct i on f or a l ower bunk, Of f i cer Ri zzo sl ammed [ hi m]

agai nst t he wal l , handcuf f ed hi m, and escor t ed hi m t o A- pod. 7

The B- 11 i nf r act i on event ual l y was di smi ssed.

5 The def endant s ver si on i s set f or t h i n t hei r br i ef . SeeAppel l ant s Br . 2728.

6 R. 56- 11 ( SCJ Pol i cy- I nmat e Di sci pl i ne) at 71.

7 R. 83 ( Goguen Dep. ) at 5859.


13/57

13

Mr . Goguen s pl acement i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on

was r evi ewed by Li eut enant Campbel l on J ul y 18, 2011. He

det er mi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d remai n i n admi ni st r at i ve

segr egat i on. Mr . Goguen r ecei ved not i ce of t he deci si on and

not i ce that hi s pl acement woul d be r evi ewed on J ul y 22, 2011.

On J ul y 22, 2011, a hear i ng was hel d t o r evi ew Mr . Goguen s

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on st at us; Li eut enant Campbel l served as

t he hear i ng of f i cer , and non- def endant Of f i cer s J ewel l and

Mador e served as commi t t ee member s. At t he hear i ng, Mr . Goguen

di d not di sput e t hat he t ol d Of f i cer Ri zzo t hat he shoul d be

t aken t o A- pod i f he was not goi ng to be assi gned a l ower bunk;

he does di sput e that he was di sr upt i ve, t hat he ar gued, and t hat

he r ef used an or der , whi ch wer e t he bases f or hi s t r ansf er t o A-

pod. 8 The hear i ng commi t t ee det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d

r emai n i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on because of hi s habi t of

argui ng, want i ng [ hi s] own way, [ and bei ng] non- cooper at i ve. 9

On J ul y 28, Mr . Goguen was r emoved f r om admi ni st r at i ve

8 See R. 56- 3 ( Admi ni st r at i ve Segr egat i on St atus Pl acement dated7/ 15/ 11) at 14 ( I nmat e Rober t Goguen pl aced on Ad Seg f ordi sr upt i ng t he pod dur i ng cel l moves. I nmat e Goguen argued wi t ht he pod of f i cer dur i ng cel l moves. ) .

9 I d.


14/57

14

segregat i on and moved back t o E- pod because he was [ r ] eady to

f ol l ow orders and was pl aced i n an upper bunk.10

Shor t l y af t er Mr . Goguen r et ur ned t o E- pod,

Of f i cer Ri zzo appr oached Mr . Goguen and st at ed: I wi l l make

sur e t hat you do not come back t o t hi s bl ock. I wi l l do

what ever i t t akes i n my personal power t o make sur e you spend

t he r est of your t i me i n A[ - ] pod. I don t car e who I have t o

t al k t o. 11

3. August 31/September 1, 2011 Incidents

On August 31, 2011, Mr . Goguen was on a tel ephone cal l

wi t h a f eder al magi st r at e j udge about anot her l awsui t .

Maj or Al l en i nt er r upt ed t he cal l and i nsi st ed that Mr . Goguen

hang up t he t el ephone. When Mr . Goguen t r i ed t o expl ai n t hat he

was on t he t el ephone wi t h a f eder al magi st r ate j udge,

Maj or Al l en t ook t he phone f r om [ Mr . Goguen s] hand, hung t he

phone up, t ol d [ Mr . Goguen] t o put [ hi s] hands behi nd [hi s]

back, [ and] [ Mr . Goguen] was handcuf f ed, shackl ed and escor t ed

t o A[ - ] pod. 12 Once t her e, Maj or Al l en i nf or med hi m t hat he

( Mr . Goguen) woul d not be t hr eat eni ng ot her of f i cer s wi t h

10 I d.

11 R. 83 ( Goguen Dep. ) at 62.

12 I d. at 17.


15/57

15

l awsui t s under hi s wat ch. 13 When i t was det ermi ned t hat

Mr . Goguen i n f act had been on t he t el ephone wi t h a f ederal

magi st r at e j udge, Mr . Goguen was escor t ed back t o t he tel ephone

t o r esume t he cal l .

Al so on August 31, Of f i cer Ri zzo wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y

r epor t and a not i ce of i nf r act i on f or a vi ol at i on of B13,

Pr ovocat i on, f or argui ng. These char ges wer e l at er di smi ssed.

The r ecor d does not cont ai n ei t her t he r eport or t he di smi ssal .

The r ecor d does cont ai n, however , an Admi ni st r at i ve Segr egat i on

Stat us Pl acement dat ed August 31, 2011. 14 Accor di ng t o t hat

document , Mr . Goguen was pl aced i n segr egat i on by

Ser geant Pl our d f or cont i nual l y ar gui ng wi t h St af f i n t he

per f or mance of t hei r dut i es and t hr eat eni ng St af f wi t h

l awsui t s. 15 The f ol l owi ng day, however , Li eut enant Bugbee

r evi ewed t he pl acement and removed Mr . Goguen f r om A- pod because

Maj or Al l en had advi se[d] t hat Mr . Goguen di d not pose [ a]

t hr eat t o secur i t y. 16

13 See i d. at 1617.

14 R. 56- 3 at 17.

15 I d.

16 I d.


16/57

16

Mr . Goguen r emai ned i n E- pod f or a l i t t l e over t hr ee

and one- hal f hour s. At t hat t i me, of f i cer s wer e conduct i ng a

count of t he i nmat es. When of f i cer s reached Mr . Goguen s cel l ,

hi s back was f aci ng t he of f i cer s, and he appear ed t o be

ur i nat i ng. Mr . Goguen l at er t est i f i ed t hat he i n f act was

ur i nat i ng dur i ng t he count . Of f i cer Ri zzo wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y

r epor t and a not i ce of i nf r act i on f or a vi ol at i on of A05,

Count . 17 Of f i cer Ri zzo al so wr ot e up Mr . Goguen f or vi ol at i ons

of B19, Thr eat eni ng, and B13, Provocat i on, f or swear i ng

and cal l i ng Of f i cer Ri zzo names. Mr . Goguen agai n was pl aced i n

A- pod.

On Sept ember 1, 2011, Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r not i f i ed

Mr . Goguen of t hi s i nf r act i on and asked f or Mr . Goguen s ver si on

of t he event s. On Sept ember 8, 2011, Mr . Goguen r ecei ved not i ce

t hat a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng f or t he i nci dent was schedul ed f or

Sept ember 13, 2011. Of f i cer Cr af t s pr esi ded at t he hear i ng, at

whi ch Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed. As par t of t hi s hear i ng,

Of f i cer Cr af t s r evi ewed answer s t o wr i t t en quest i ons posed by

Mr . Goguen t o hi s cel l mat e. Fol l owi ng t he hear i ng,

17 R. 56- 11 ( SCJ Pol i cy- I nmat e Di sci pl i ne) at 70. The pol i cydef i nes t hi s vi ol at i on as f ol l ows: A- 05 Count - Non pr esence ator i nt er f er i ng wi t h t he t aki ng of an i nmat e count , ei t her f or malor i nf or mal . I d.


17/57

17

Of f i cer Cr af t s f ound Mr . Goguen gui l t y of t he count vi ol at i on,

but not gui l t y of t he t hr eat eni ng and pr ovocat i on vi ol at i ons.

For puni shment , Of f i cer Cr af t s i mposed a $25 f i ne and t hr ee

days di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on. Maj or Al l en deni ed Mr . Goguen s

appeal .

Mr . Goguen s admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on i ni t i al l y was

r evi ewed on Sept ember 4 by Li eut enant Campbel l , who det ermi ned

t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d r emai n i n A- pod. Mr . Goguen r ecei ved

not i ce t o t hat ef f ect and was advi sed t hat hi s pl acement woul d

be r evi ewed agai n on Sept ember 9. At t hat hear i ng,

Ser geant Pl our d pr esi ded, and Of f i cer Fr ench and non- def endant

Of f i cer Ducharme act ed as commi t t ee member s. The par t i es

di sput e t he t est i mony t hat was gi ven. Accor di ng t o t he

def endant s, Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed t hat t her e was an ongoi ng

i nvest i gat i on concer ni ng Of f i cer Ri zzo and ot her st af f at t he

SCJ . 18 The commi t t ee det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d r emai n i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on unt i l t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he

i nci dent concl uded.

18 Mr . Goguen now deni es sayi ng t hi s; accor di ng to Mr . Goguen, het est i f i ed at t he hear i ng t hat Of f i cer Ri zzo s st at ement s shoul dbe i nvest i gated. Mr . Goguen, however , does not poi nt t o anyswor n t est i mony i n t he r ecor d t o suppor t hi s deni al .


18/57

18

Mr . Goguen s admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on was agai n

r evi ewed on Sept ember 16, wi t h Li eut enant Campbel l as hear i ng

of f i cer and non- def endant Of f i cers Marose and Davi s as commi t t ee

members. At t he hear i ng, t he commi t t ee consi dered evi dence t hat

t her e was no i nvest i gat i on of SCJ of f i cer s pendi ng, Mr . Goguen

had no new wr i t e- ups, and he had been medi cal l y cl ear ed. The

commi t t ee det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d be r emoved f r om

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, but pl aced on di sci pl i nar y

segr egat i on f or an ol d wr i t e- up. On Sept ember 21, 2011,

Mr . Goguen was t r ansf er r ed back t o E- pod, wher e he remai ned

unt i l Oct ober 21, 2011.

4. September 29 and October 2 Infractions

On Sept ember 29, 2011, Of f i cer Ri zzo saw Mr . Goguen

dr i nki ng bl ack l i qui d f r om a cup. Of f i cer Ri zzo asked Mr . Goguen

i f he had a recei pt f or cof f ee; Mr . Goguen r esponded t hat he di d

not . Of f i cer Ri zzo t ol d Mr . Goguen t o dump i t out , and, a f ew

mi nut es l ater , Mr . Goguen compl i ed. Mr . Goguen cl ai ms t hat t he

l i qui d was wat er and t hat i t was t he cup t hat was bl ack.

Of f i cer Ri zzo wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y r epor t and a not i ce of

i nf r acti on f or a vi ol at i on of C04, Gi vi ng, Recei vi ng, or

Swappi ng. Accor di ng t o Mr . Goguen s t est i mony, Of f i cer Ri zzo

was on t he upper t i er , and he was on the l ower t i er when t hi s


19/57

19

encount er occur r ed; Mr . Goguen asser t s t hat t he cup i t sel f was

di sgust i ngl y bl ack and t hat Of f i cer Ri zzo r ef used t o i nspect

i t . 19

Of f i cer Meuni er gave Mr . Goguen a not i ce of t he

Sept ember 29 i nf r act i on t hat same day. Of f i cer Meuni er spoke t o

Mr . Goguen and asked f or hi s si de of t he st or y. The f ol l owi ng

day, Mr . Goguen r ecei ved not i ce t hat a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng was

schedul ed f or Oct ober 3, 2011.

On Oct ober 2, 2011, Mr . Goguen was seen eat i ng hal f of

a sandwi ch whi l e he had a f ul l uneaten sandwi ch on hi s t r ay. A

r evi ew of vi deo showed t hat anot her i nmat e had pushed hi s t r ay

t o t he cent er of t he t abl e and that Mr . Goguen r emoved t he

sandwi ch. Non- def endant Of f i cer Bal di nel l i wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y

r epor t and a not i ce f or a vi ol at i on of C14, Unaut hor i zed

Food, 20 and Mr . Goguen r ecei ved a copy of t he not i ce. Non-

def endant Of f i cer Munn was assi gned t o i nvest i gat e t he i nci dent

and spoke t o Mr . Goguen. Of f i cer Munn t ol d Mr . Goguen what t he

al l eged vi ol at i on was about . Mr . Goguen st at ed: Ah f - - k i t ;

he al so st ated t hat another i nmate t hr ew us under t he bus. I

19 R. 83 (Goguen Dep. ) at 79.



20/57

20

don t need t o hear any more. 21 The f ol l owi ng day, Mr . Goguen

was gi ven not i ce t hat a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng f or t he sandwi ch

i nci dent was schedul ed f or Oct ober 6, 2011.

The di sci pl i nary hear i ng f or t he cof f ee i nci dent was

hel d on Oct ober 3. Of f i cer J ef f r ey J acques ser ved as t he

hear i ng of f i cer . Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed at t he hear i ng and st at ed

t hat t he l i qui d was water , not cof f ee. He had been gi ven a f ew

st i l l phot os t o pr esent as evi dence at t he hear i ng. Of f i cer

J ef f r ey J acques f ound Mr . Goguen gui l t y of t he vi ol at i on and

i mposed a one- day cel l r est r i ct i on. An i nmat e on cel l

r est r i ct i on i s al l owed t o come out of t he cel l t o eat , t o

shower , and f or appoi nt ment s, but may not l eave t he cel l f or

r ecr eat i on. Mr . Goguen di d not appeal t hi s deci si on.

The di sci pl i nary hear i ng f or t he sandwi ch i nci dent was

hel d on Oct ober 6. Non- def endant Of f i cer Mi chael J ohnson was

t he hear i ng of f i cer . Mr . Goguen pl eaded gui l t y, and Of f i cer

J ohnson i mposed a f our - hour cel l r est r i ct i on.

5. October 13, 2011 Cell Search

On Oct ober 13, 2011, Sergeant Pl our d or dered

Of f i cer Ri zzo t o per f or m a sear ch of Mr . Goguen s cel l .

21 R. 45- 9 ( Munn Af f . ) at 1.


21/57

21

Mr . Goguen asser t s t hat , dur i ng t he sear ch, Of f i cer s Ri zzo and

Eddi e J acques t ook t housands of pages of di scover y rel at ed t o

one of Mr . Goguen s t hen- pendi ng ci vi l cases (agai nst

cor r ect i onal of f i cer s at anot her count y j ai l ) and t hr ew t hem on

t he f l oor . Some document s l anded i n t he t oi l et and si nk; al l

wer e out of or der and st r ewn acr oss t he cel l . The sear ch

uncover ed a soap di sh and soap; nei t her i nmate i n t he cel l had a

r ecei pt , and bot h di scl ai med owner shi p of t he i t ems.

Of f i cer Ri zzo f ound a cup of cof f ee, dr i ed paper bl ocki ng most

of t he vent , and an empt y cof f ee bag wi t h a sugar packet under

Mr . Goguen s mat t r ess, al l of whi ch wer e cont r aband.

Of f i cer Ri zzo al so f ound an envel ope on Mr . Goguen s s i de of t he

cel l t hat was seal ed and was marked as l egal paperwork.

Of f i cer Ri zzo opened t he envel ope and saw a memo f r om

Maj or Al l en, at whi ch poi nt he st opped and t ook t he paper work t o

Ser geant Pl our d t o r evi ew. Ser geant Pl our d l ooked at t he

paper wor k and i nst r uct ed Of f i cer Ri zzo t o r et ur n i t t o

Mr . Goguen, whi ch Of f i cer Ri zzo di d.


22/57

22

Of f i cer Ri zzo wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y r epor t and a not i ce

of i nf r acti on f or a vi ol at i on of C09, Possessi on, 22

concerni ng

t he i t ems f ound i n t he cel l , but t he char ge l at er was di smi ssed.

6. October 17, 2011 Shower Request

On Oct ober 17, 2011, Mr . Goguen was housed i n a cel l

on t he bot t om t i er i n E- pod. He asked t o go upst ai r s t o shower

and was t ol d t hat he was not al l owed t o go t o t he upper t i er f or

any r eason and t hat , as a l ower - t i er i nmate, he coul d not shower

af t er t he t op of t he hour . Lat er Mr . Goguen, al ong wi t h anot her

i nmate named Gi l l , argued wi t h Of f i cer Ri zzo about t he shower

r ul es. 23 The f ol l owi ng day, Of f i cer Ri zzo wr ot e a di sci pl i nar y

r epor t and a not i ce of i nf r act i on f or a vi ol at i on of B13,

Pr ovocat i on, i n connect i on wi t h t he shower i nci dent . Of f i cer

Eddi e J acques i nvest i gated t he i nci dent and spoke t o Mr . Goguen.

The of f i cer t ol d Mr . Goguen t he nat ure of t he al l eged vi ol at i on,

asked f or Mr . Goguen s versi on of t he event s, and gave

Mr . Goguen a copy of t he not i ce. On Oct ober 20, 2011,

Mr . Goguen r ecei ved not i ce t hat a di sci pl i nar y hear i ng was

schedul ed f or Oct ober 25, 2011. The hear i ng actual l y occur r ed


23 Mr . Goguen does not al l ege t hat t he r ul es di d not exi st ort hat t hey wer e bei ng enf orced i n an arbi t r ary manner .


23/57

23

on Oct ober 31, 2011, wi t h Of f i cer J ef f r ey J acques as hear i ng

of f i cer . The of f i cer hear d t est i mony f r om Mr . Goguen and al so

consi der ed vi deo f oot age and t he wr i t t en responses t o quest i ons

posed by Mr . Goguen t o Ll ewel l yn Eat on, Of f i cer J ul i e Hayden,

and Of f i cer Ri zzo. 24 Of f i cer J ef f r ey J acques f ound Mr . Goguen

gui l t y of t he pr ovocat i on vi ol at i on and i mposed t hr ee days of

di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on. Maj or Al l en deni ed Mr . Goguen s

appeal .

7. Miscellaneous Incidents, Grievances, and Requests

Throughout Sept ember and Oct ober 2011, Mr . Goguen

f i l ed a number of gr i evances concer ni ng t he act i ons of SCJ

of f i cer s. One gr i evance concer ned a book ent i t l ed, The

Pr i soner s Sel f Hel p Li t i gat i on Manual . Accor di ng t o

Mr . Goguen, t he book had been del i ver ed to hi m at t he begi nni ng

of Sept ember . When he r etur ned f r om r ecreat i on on Sept ember 6,

however , t he book, as wel l as Mr . Goguen s per sonal notes on t he

book, had been r emoved f r om hi s cel l , al l egedl y by Of f i cer

Shawn Magui r e. Mr . Goguen f i l ed a gr i evance concerni ng t he

mi ss i ng book. On Sept ember 21, Of f i cer Magui r e wr ot e a

24 Mr . Goguen al so had posed quest i ons t o another i nmate, Gi l l ,but Gi l l had been r el eased so was unavai l abl e t o r espond t oquest i ons.


24/57

24

memor andum r espondi ng t o t hi s and f our other gr i evances.

Subsequent l y, Mr . Goguen f i l ed gr i evances concer ni ng hi s l ack of

access t o var i ous r esour ces i ncl udi ng l aw l i br ar y books, pr i son

pol i ci es, Ti t l e 34A of t he Mai ne Revi sed St at ut es, and t he

sel f - hel p l i t i gat i on manual ; he al so f i l ed gr i evances concer ni ng

t he st af f at SCJ openi ng hi s l egal mai l . 25 One of t hese

subsequent gr i evances, f i l ed on Sept ember 29, concerned t he

act i ons of Of f i cer Ri zzo. Accor di ng t o Mr . Goguen s gr i evance,

Of f i cer Ri zzo ref used t o have someone exami ne t he document s t hat

Mr . Goguen i nt ended to br i ng t o a meet i ng wi t h hi s at t orney.

25 Non- l egal mai l i s opened and i nspect ed f or cont r aband. Anymai l t hat i s det er mi ned t o be l egal mai l i s not t o be opened,but i s at t ached t o a l egal mai l i nspect i on f or m and f or war ded t ot he housi ng uni t . The f ol l owi ng day an of f i cer i n t he housi nguni t del i ver s t he mai l and opens any l egal mai l i n t he pr esenceof t he i nmat e. Once t he of f i cer det er mi nes t hat t he mai l doesnot cont ai n cont r aband, t he l egal mai l i s t ur ned over t o t hei nmate.

I nmates are not al l owed t o have seal ed envel opes i n t hei rcel l s, and t her e i s no except i on f or l egal mai l . SCJ pol i cydoes per mi t i nmates t o send seal ed envel opes wi t hout censor i ng,i nspect i on, or r estr i ct i on t o cer t ai n r eci pi ent s.

Accor di ng t o t he def endant s, i f an i nmat e i n A- pod hasout goi ng l egal mai l , A- pod of f i cer s go ar ound on t he ni ght shi f t

wi t h a seal ed box f or t he i nmat e t o pl ace any l egal mai l i n t hebox. The i nmate seal s t he envel ope i mmedi atel y bef ore pl aci ngi t i n t he box. For i nmat es i n E- pod, t her e i s a box f or mai l i nt he pod. Thi s box i s pi cked up dai l y. The i nmat e can seal anymai l r i ght bef or e pl aci ng i t i n t he box. Mr . Goguen mai nt ai nst hat t her e i s no r ul e about havi ng t o seal or not seal anyenvel opes.


25/57

25

Accor di ng t o Mr . Goguen, Of f i cer Ri zzo bot h deni ed hi s r equest

and t aunt ed hi m i n doi ng so.

On Oct ober 12, Of f i cer Mar gar et Kel l y conf i scated

Mr . Goguen s l egal f i l e as he ar r i ved f or a meet i ng wi t h hi s

at t orney, al t hough t he document s al r eady had been exami ned f or

cont r aband and had been aut hor i zed f or use at t he meet i ng. The

f i l e was r et ur ned t o Mr . Goguen l at er , but he di d not have t he

benef i t of hi s r esear ch and document at i on i n di scussi ng hi s

cr i mi nal case wi t h counsel .

8. October 21, 2011 Placement in A-pod

On Oct ober 21, 2011, Li eut enant Bugbee pl aced

Mr . Goguen i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on and t r ansf er r ed hi m t o

A- pod because he pose[ d] a ser i ous t hr eat [ t o the] secur i t y or

or der l y r unni ng of t he i nst i t ut i on. 26 The f act ual basi s f or

[ t he] pl acement was t hat Mr . Goguen had not adj ust [ ed] t o t he

r ul es and r egul at i ons set f or t h by t hi s f aci l i t y and had

cont i nued t o ar gue wi t h and be[ ] conf r ont at i onal wi t h St af f . 27

Thi s pl acement was r evi ewed by non- def endant Sergeant Pul l en on

Oct ober 24, 2011, who det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen shoul d r emai n

26 R. 56- 3 ( Admi ni st r at i ve Segr egat i on St at us Pl acement dat ed10/ 21/ 11) at 23.

27 I d.


26/57

26

i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on; Mr . Goguen was provi ded wi t h

not i ce of t hi s deci si on t he day i t i ssued.

9. Maximum Security Classification

On Oct ober 26, 2011, Mr . Goguen was r ecl assi f i ed f r om

medi um secur i t y t o maxi mum secur i t y because i t was det er mi ned

t hat he was a danger t o the saf et y and secur i t y of t he f aci l i t y.

Mr . Goguen r ecei ved not i ce of hi s r ecl assi f i cat i on, and he

appeal ed t he r ecl assi f i cat i on deci si on. The appeal hear i ng was

hel d on November 1, 2011. At t he appeal hear i ng, t he

cl assi f i cat i on commi t t ee consi st ed of Of f i cer Ther esa Br own,

Li eut enant Bugbee and t wo non- def endant of f i cers, St ephen Gi ggey

and Chr i s Mur r ay. Mr . Goguen was pr esent and t est i f i ed at t he

hear i ng. The cl assi f i cat i on commi t t ee r evi ewed l og ent r i es

concer ni ng Mr . Goguen dat ed bet ween J ul y 23, 2011, and Oct ober

21, 2011. I t det ermi ned t hat Mr . Goguen woul d r emai n i n maxi mum

secur i t y because he was ver y ar gument at i ve and di sr espect f ul t o

of f i cer s and because he was unabl e t o f ol l ow t he r ul es of t he

f aci l i t y. The cl assi f i cat i on commi t t ee makes i t s det er mi nat i ons

based on maj or i t y vot e.


27/57

27

Mr . Goguen was t ol d t hat he coul d appeal hi s

cl assi f i cat i on deci si on t o Maj or Al l en, but he di d not do so.28

Accor di ng t o Mr . Goguen, an appeal woul d have been f ut i l e

because i t was Maj or Al l en who had recl assi f i ed hi m t o maxi mum

secur i t y onl y f i ve days ear l i er . Mr . Goguen r emai ned i n A- pod

f r om Oct ober 21, 2011, unt i l he was t r ansf er r ed out of SCJ i n

December 2011.

Maxi mum secur i t y i nmat es ar e al l owed t he same amount

of r ecr eat i on, t i me f or shower s, and t i me f or phone cal l s as

i nmat es i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. However , cor r ect i ons

of f i cer s pl ace maxi mum secur i t y i nmat es i n f our - poi nt r est r ai nt s

when t hey use the l i br ary car t and make phone cal l s. Mr . Goguen

mai nt ai ns t hat Ser geant Pl our d i mposed t hi s r equi r ement onl y on

hi m, and t hi s pr act i ce pr event ed hi m f r om accessi ng t he l i br ar y

cart . 29 He t est i f i ed t hat t hi s pr act i ce was enf or ced by

Li eut enant Bugbee and Of f i cer J essi ca Al mei da as wel l . 30

28 An i nmat e i s per mi t t ed t o request r evi ew of cl assi f i cat i onst at us by a cl assi f i cat i on super vi sor ever y si xt y days. Ani nmat e s cl assi f i cat i on st at us i s aut omat i cal l y r evi ewed ever yni net y days.

29 See R. 83 ( Goguen Dep. ) at 42.

30 See i d. at 43, 100.


28/57

28

10. Other Incidents

Among t he ot her bases f or Mr . Goguen s compl ai nt s i s

t hat a dr awi ng he made was conf i scat ed as cont r aband because i t

cont ai ned gang symbol s. Mr . Goguen had l ef t t he dr awi ng i nsi de

a magazi ne i n hi s cel l , and t he magazi ne wi t h t he dr awi ng st i l l

i n i t was f ound i n t he possessi on of anot her i nmat e. Col or

drawi ngs ar e consi der ed cont r aband at t he SCJ because some

col ored dr awi ngs have been used t o conceal dr ugs; t he i nmat es

l i ck or swal l ow t he col or ed paper t o get hi gh. Mr . Goguen

mai nt ai ns t hat t here were no gang symbol s i n t he dr awi ng and

quest i ons whet her i nmates ar e abl e to hi de dr ugs i n a dr awi ng

made i nsi de t he SCJ .

Mr . Goguen al so t est i f i ed t hat , on November 6, 2011,

af t er bei ng r ecl assi f i ed as a maxi mum- secur i t y i nmat e, Of f i cer s

Eddi e J acques and Meuni er or der ed hi m t o t ur n hi s back t o t he

cel l door and put hi s hands t oget her out t hr ough a door sl ot .

They t hen handcuf f ed hi m and pul l ed t he door open suddenl y,

wr enchi ng hi s ar ms and shoul der s and causi ng sever e pai n i n hi s

shoul der and back. 31

31 See i d. at 9495.


29/57

29

Fi nal l y, Mr . Goguen r ecount ed t hat , i n December 2011,

he was moved by Of f i cer Meuni er f r om an observat i on cel l t o

anot her A- pod cel l t hat had bl ood, vomi t , and f eces i n i t .

Accor di ng t o Mr . Goguen, bot h Of f i cer Meuni er and Of f i cer Kel l y

deni ed hi m suppl i es t o cl ean t he cel l .

B.

1.

Mr . Goguen f i l ed t hi s act i on under 42 U. S. C. 1983,

nami ng numer ous of f i cer s and admi ni st r ators at SCJ . 32 I n hi s

second amended compl ai nt , Mr . Goguen det ai l ed t he events

descr i bed above and al l eged t hat t hese and other act i ons t aken

by the def endant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om

unr easonabl e sear ches and sei zur es under t he Four t h Amendment ,

vi ol at ed hi s r i ght t o due pr ocess under t he Four t eent h

Amendment , hi s r i ght t o pet i t i on t he Gover nment f or r edr ess

under t he Fi r st Amendment , hi s r i ght of access t o counsel under

32 Speci f i cal l y, Mr . Goguen named t he f ol l owi ng def endant s:Maj or Al l en, Li eut enant Bugbee, Ser geant Pl our d, Cl assi f i cat i onsSuper vi sor Ther esa Br own, and Of f i cer s Al mei da, Cr af t s, French,Gi l bl ai r , Hayden, Eddi e J acques, J ef f r ey J acques, Kel l y,Magui r e, Meuni er , Ri zzo, and Cory Swope.


30/57

30

t he Si xt h Amendment , and hi s r i ght under t he Ei ght h Amendment t o

be f r ee f r om cr uel and unusual puni shment .33

33 He al l eged:

( 1)

Of f i cer s i nt ent i onal l y hadf abr i cat [ ed] r epor t s knowi ng t her esul t s woul d l ead t o i mmedi atesegr egat i on [ and] use[ d] admi ni st r at i vesegr egat i on . . . as a means t o puni sh

hi m, i n vi ol at i on of hi s Four t eent hAmendment due process r i ght s;

( 2) Of f i cer s i nt ent i onal l y hadconf i scat [ ed] [ hi s] l egal document s,l aw l i br ar y books, and ot hermat er i al s, ar bi t r ar i l y had pr event edhi m f rom usi ng t he l i brary cart , andhad i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s conf i dent i alcommuni cat i on wi t h cour t s and hi scounsel , i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st andSi xt h Amendment s and st at e l aw;

( 3)

Of f i cer s ar bi t r ar i l y had kept hi m i nadmi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, i nvi ol at i on of hi s Four t eent h Amendmentdue pr ocess r i ght s;

( 4)

Of f i cer s had per secut ed hi m i nr et al i at i on f or hi s f i l i ng gr i evancesand compl ai ni ng t o of f i ci al s aboutwr ongf ul conduct , i n vi ol at i on of t heFi r st Amendment ;

( 5)

Of f i cer s del i ber at el y and r epeat edl y

had subj ect ed [ hi m] t o vi sual bodycavi t y sear ches wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on, i n vi ol at i on of hi s Four t h, Ei ght h, andFour t eenth Amendment r i ght s;

( 6) Of f i cer s had conf i ned hi m t o anunsani t ar y cel l and had pr ovi ded hi munsani t ar y f ood ser vi ce, i n vi ol at i on


31/57

31

Fol l owi ng di scover y, t he def endant s f i l ed a

compr ehensi ve di sposi t i ve mot i on. The def endant s mai nt ai ned

t hat many of Mr . Goguen s al l egat i ons - - t hat of f i cer s had

deni ed hi m use of hi s l egal mat er i al s dur i ng hi s meet i ng wi t h

hi s at t or ney, had l i mi t ed hi s access t o t he l i br ar y car t , and

had served hi m f ood i n an unsani t ar y manner , f or exampl e - -

f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m f or r el i ef . The def endant s moved f or

summary j udgment on t he mer i t s wi t h r espect t o Mr . Goguen s

cl ai m t hat he had suf f er ed r et al i at i on. Accor di ng t o t he

def endant s, i t was di f f i cul t t o di scer n . . . whi ch acti ons t he

Pl ai nt i f f al l ege[ d] wer e r et al i at i on; but , wi t h r espect t o t he

si t uat i ons he had ment i oned speci f i cal l y, t her e was no evi dence

of a causal l i nk bet ween hi s gr i evances and t he al l eged

ret al i at i on. 34 The def endant s al so argued t hat t hey were

ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment wi t h r espect t o Mr . Goguen s

Four t eent h Amendment Due Pr ocess cl ai m and wi t h respect t o hi s

Ei ght h Amendment cl ai m. Tur ni ng t o t he Due Process cl ai m, t he

of hi s Ei ght h and Four t eenth Amendment

r i ght s; and( 7) Of f i cer s col l ect i vel y had conspi r ed t o

depr i ve hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onalr i ghts .

R. 24 at 51- 54.

34 R. 44 at 1314.


32/57

32

def endant s not ed t hat , under Bel l v. Wol f i sh, 441 U. S. 520

( 1979) , t he key quest i on was whet her t he condi t i ons t o whi ch

Mr . Goguen was subj ect ed const i t ut ed puni shment t hat r equi r ed

an adj udi cat i on of gui l t i n accor dance wi t h due pr ocess of

l aw. 35 However , t hey cont i nued, not al l r est r i ct i ons pl aced

upon a pr et r i al det ai nee ar e puni shment : a condi t i on,

r est r i cti on or di sabi l i t y r easonabl y r el at ed t o a l egi t i mat e

gover nment al obj ect i ve, . . . does not , wi t hout mor e, amount t o

puni shment . 36 They submi t t ed t hat , because Mr . Goguen s

pl acement s i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on wer e j ust i f i ed

i ni t i al l y by hi s vi ol at i ons of j ai l r ul es, and t hen wer e

r evi ewed wi t hi n sevent y- t wo hour s, t he r equi r ement s of due

process were met .

The def endant s al so mai nt ai ned t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed

t o summary j udgment on Mr . Goguen s const i t ut i onal cl ai ms

r el at ed t o bei ng st r i p sear ched. They not ed t hat , af t er

bal anci ng t he i nt er est s of t he i nst i t ut i on agai nst t he pr i vacy

i nt er est s of t he i nmat es, t he Supr eme Cour t i n Bel l had

concl uded t hat subj ect i ng a pr et r i al det ai nee t o vi sual body-

cavi t y i nspect i ons f ol l owi ng cont act wi t h i ndi vi dual s f r om

35 I d. at 16 ( quot i ng Bel l v. Wol f i sh, 441 U. S. 520, 535 ( 1979) ) .

36 I d. ( quot i ng Bel l , 441 U. S. at 539) .


33/57

33

out si de t he i nst i t ut i on di d not vi ol at e due pr ocess. They

argued t hat t he st r i p searches t o whi ch Mr . Goguen was subj ect ed

whi l e he was i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on si mi l ar l y wer e

j ust i f i ed by concer ns of [ m] ai nt ai ni ng i nst i t ut i onal secur i t y

and pr eser vi ng i nt er nal or der and di sci pl i ne. 37 Al t er nat i vel y,

t he def endant s cont ended t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y on t hi s cl ai m. Accor di ng t o t he def endant s, i t [ wa] s

not cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat t he of f i cer s i nvol ved i n st r i p

sear chi ng i nmat es, i ncl udi ng t hose who ar e pr et r i al , upon ent r y

or exi t f r om a cel l i n A- pod wer e vi ol at i ng a const i t ut i onal

r i ght . Any mi st ake as t o t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t hei r act i ons

was r easonabl e. 38

2.

Af t er br i ef i ng was compl et ed, t he magi st r at e j udge

i ssued an exhaust i ve r epor t and r ecommendat i on. I n i t , t he

magi st r at e j udge summar i zed Mr . Goguen s cl ai ms accor di ngl y:

Goguen mai ntai ns t hat he was subj ect edt o i nt ent i onal puni shment based on hi st endency to f i l e gr i evances and speak out i fhe percei ved what he bel i eved t o be a

vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s or a vi ol at i on ofpr i son pol i cy, and al so based on hi sl i t i gat i on agai nst cor r ect i onal of f i cer s

37 I d. at 26 ( quot i ng Bel l , 441 U. S. at 546) .

38 I d. at 27.


34/57

34

f r om anot her f aci l i t y. The puni shmentconsi st ed of excessi ve conf i nement i n

admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, unr easonabl erecl assi f i cat i on t o maxi mum secur i t y,excessi ve st r i p sear ches and body cavi t ysear ches, conf i scat i on of l egal document s,i nt er f er ence wi t h hi s communi cat i ons wi t ht he cour t and wi t h counsel , conf i scat i on ofper sonal pr oper t y, pl acement i n anunsani t ar y cel l , unsani t ar y f ood pr act i ces,appl i cat i on of excessi ve f or ce, andi mposi t i on of f our - poi nt r est r ai nt s t of r ust r at e access t o l egal mat er i al s. Goguenal so advances a cl ai m of [ F] i r st [ A] mendmentr et al i at i on, anot her cl ai m t hat has theabi l i t y t o gat her up mul t i pl e ci r cumst ancesi n suppor t of one cl ai m. I n addi t i on t oadvanci ng t hese t wo cor e theor i es, Goguenal so i t emi zes a l aundr y l i st of smal l ercl ai ms based on each di st i nct i nci dent ofwhi ch he compl ai ns. [39]

The magi st r at e j udge t hen r evi ewed each of t hese cl ai ms. Wi t h

r espect t o Mr . Goguen s cl ai m t hat he was subj ect ed t o puni t i ve

st r i p sear ches, t he magi st r at e j udge expl ai ned t hat

[ t ] he r eal i ssue her e i nvol ves t hei mposi t i on of puni shment on a pr et r i aldet ai nee, wi t hout adequat e pr edepr i vat i onprocess. Al t hough Goguen s move wascl assi f i ed as admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i onr at her t han di sci pl i nar y segr egat i on, i f t hecondi t i ons of conf i nement i mposed on hi m i nA- pod cr ossed t he puni shment t hr eshol d, a

cl ai m i s est abl i shed f or i mposi ng pr ehear i ngpuni shment on a pr et r i al det ai nee. [ 40]

39 Goguen v. Gi l bl ai r , No. 2: 12- cv- 00048- J AW, 2013 WL 5407225, at*24 ( D. Me. Sept . 25, 2013) .

40 I d. at *29.


35/57

35

The magi st r at e j udge not ed t hat t here wer e addi t i onal

r est r i ct i ons at t endant t o admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, but

concl uded t hat i t was not necessary t o deci de whet her

t hese condi t i ons, i n combi nat i on, cross t he puni t i ve

t hr eshol d f or a pr et r i al det ai nee, because Mr . Goguen s

pl acement i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on al so i nvol ved

mul t i pl e dai l y st r i p sear ches and vi sual body cavi t y

sear ches. 41 Thi s f i nal condi t i on, t he magi st r at e j udge

expl ai ned, i s suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of puni t i ve

conf i nement , wi t hout due pr ocess, r egar dl ess of t he f act

t hat Somer set Count y cal l s i t admi ni st r at i ve

conf i nement . 42 Cr i t i cal t o t he magi st r at e j udge s

concl usi on was t he f act t hat ,

af t er Goguen event ual l y r ecei ved pr ocess att he J ai l , hi s act ual sanct i ons typi cal l ypal ed i n compar i son t o what he exper i encedwhi l e wai t i ng f or t he pr ocess t o unf ol d.For exampl e, he was assessed t hree days ofdi sci pl i nar y segr egat i on f or ur i nat i ngdur i ng count , but suf f er ed appr oxi mat el y 13days of what amount ed t o di sci pl i narysegr egat i on whi l e awai t i ng hi s hear i ng. [ 43]

41 I d.

42 I d.

43 I d.


36/57

36

The magi st r at e j udge t heref or e concl uded t hat [ t ] hese

condi t i ons . . . r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act

concer ni ng t he deni al of due pr ocess. 44

Addr essi ng t he r et al i at i on cl ai m, t he magi st r at e j udge

f ound t hat Mr . Goguen had est abl i shed a causal l i nk bet ween hi s

pr ot ected acti vi t y - - f i l i ng gr i evances - - and sever al acti ons

of t he def endant s, such as pl aci ng Mr . Goguen i n f our - poi nt

r est r ai nt s, dest r oyi ng l egal document s i nci dent t o a sear ch, and

subj ect i ng Mr . Goguen t o physi cal pai n.

The magi st r at e j udge t hen r evi ewed her f i ndi ngs and

concl uded t hat , wi t h r espect t o Of f i cer s Br own, Cr af t s, Hayden,

Magui r e, Swope, and J ef f r ey J acques, Mr . Goguen had not

suf f i ci ent l y devel oped hi s cl ai ms. As f or t he due pr ocess

cl ai m, however , she concl uded t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence

t o r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act

concer ni ng t hose of f i cer s who ei t hersuppor t ed or di r ect ed t he i mposi t i on ofadmi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on on Goguen pr i ort o compl et i on of t he due pr ocess pr ocedur esout l i ned i n Wol f f v. McDonnel l [ 45] and agai nst

44 I d.

45 I n Wol f f v. McDonnel l , 418 U. S. 539, 563 ( 1974) , t he Cour thel d t hat t he mi ni mum r equi r ement s of pr ocedur al due pr ocessar e sat i sf i ed by pr ovi di ng t o pr i soner s advance wr i t t en not i ceof t he cl ai med vi ol at i on and a wr i t t en st at ement of t he


37/57

37

t hose of f i cer s who act ual l y conduct ed orordered Goguen t o compl y wi t h t he st r i p

sear ch and vi sual body cavi t y sear ch pr ocesswhi l e Goguen was subj ect t o so- cal l edadmi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. [ 46]

Accordi ng t o the magi st r ate j udge, t hose def endant s wer e Maj or

Al l en, Li eut enant Bugbee, Ser geant Pl our d, and Of f i cer s Al mei da,

French, Gi l bl ai r , Meuni er , and Ri zzo. Tur ni ng t o t he

r et al i at i on cl ai m, t he magi st r at e j udge det er mi ned t hat

t her e i s a genui ne i ssue concer ni ng t hoseof f i cer s who suppor t ed or di r ect ed t hei mposi t i on of admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on onGoguen pr i or t o compl et i on of t he duepr ocess pr ocedur es out l i ned i n Wol f f v.McDonnel l , and t he cumul at i ve i mpact ofdi sr upt i ng cour t conf er ences, scat t er i ngl egal paper s t hr oughout Goguen s cel l ,i mposi ng f our - poi nt shackl es when Goguenaccessed t he l i br ar y car t , and usi ngunnecessar y f or ce. Thi s cl ai m i s vi abl e

agai nst Al l en, Al mei da, Bugbee, Gi l bl ai r ,Kel l y, Meuni er , Pl our d, and Ri zzo. [47]

The magi st r at e j udge al so addr essed t he def endant s

asser t i on of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. She expl ai ned t hat her

r ecommendat i on t hat t he due pr ocess and r et al i at i on cl ai ms go

f or war d i s premi sed i n l ar ge measure on the i mposi t i on of

mul t i pl e dai l y st r i p sear ches and vi sual body cavi t y sear ches on

f act f i nder s as t o t he evi dence r el i ed upon and t he reasons f ort he di sci pl i nar y act i on t aken.

46 Goguen, 2013 WL 5407225, at *32.

47 I d.


38/57

38

a pr et r i al det ai nee i n advance of Wol f f v. McDonnel l pr ocess. 48

The magi st r at e j udge r ej ect ed t he def endant s ar gument t hat

est abl i shed case l aw al l owed f or t he r out i ne st r i p sear chi ng of

i nmat es upon l eavi ng or ent er i ng a segr egat i on uni t :

The cases do r ef l ect t hat t he use of suchsear ches i s per mi t t ed i n t he cont ext ofi nt r oduct i on t o a f aci l i t y, or t r ansf er t osegr egated conf i nement , or upon r et ur n f r omcont act vi s i t s. Bel l v. Wol f i sh i t sel fsuppor t s t he poi nt as even pr et r i aldet ai nees wer e subj ect t o a f aci l i t y- wi depol i cy of i mposi ng st r i p sear ches f ol l owi ngcont act vi si t s. The di f f er ence i n t hi scase, however , i s t hat t he i ssue concer nscompl i ance wi t h t he Wol f f v. McDonnel l duepr ocess r equi r ement s bef or e t r ansf er r i ng apr et r i al det ai nee i n gener al popul at i on t opuni t i ve condi t i ons i n segr egat edconf i nement . A change i n condi t i ons t hati mposes mul t i pl e dai l y st r i p- and vi sualbody cavi t y sear ches as t he pr i ce of any

out - of - cel l l i ber t y can r easonabl y be deemedpuni t i ve i n compar i son t o t he condi t i ons ofpr i son l i f e exi st i ng i n gener al popul at i on.The r i ght of a pret r i al detai nee t o r ecei vedue pr ocess pr i or t o t he i mposi t i on ofpr i son- based puni shment has been cl ear l yest abl i shed si nce t he 1970s deci si ons i nWol f f v. McDonnel l and Bel l v. Wol f i sh.Consequent l y, I r ecommend t hat t he cour t notr ecogni ze qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i n t hi spar t i cul ar cont ext . [ 49]

48 I d.

49 I d. at *33.


39/57

39

I n shor t , t he magi st r at e j udge det er mi ned t hat t he r ecor d

pr esent ed a genui ne i ssue of t r i abl e f act as t o ( 1) whet her t he

def endant s act i ons i n t r ansf er r i ng Mr . Goguen t o admi ni st r at i ve

segr egat i on wer e puni t i ve i n nat ur e, especi al l y consi der i ng t he

condi t i ons i n A- pod compared t o t he i nf r act i ons whi ch pr ompt ed

hi s t r ansf er , and ( 2) whet her t he of f i cer s mot i ves i n t aki ng

t hese and ot her act i ons were pr ompt ed by Mr . Goguen s pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment .

The def endant s f i l ed obj ect i ons t o t he magi st r at e

j udge s r ecommendat i ons. The di st r i ct cour t , however , af f i r med

t he r ecommended di sposi t i on i n i t s ent i r et y. The def endant s

t i mel y appeal ed. 50

50 I n t hei r not i ce of appeal , t he def endant s i dent i f i ed t hef ol l owi ng por t i ons of t he or der as t he bases f or t hei r appeal :

( 1)

t he deci si on t hat Al l en, Al mei da,Bugbee, Fr ench, Gi l bl ai r , Kel l y,Meuni er , Pl our d and Ri zzo ar e notent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t hecl ai m t hat t hey vi ol at ed pr ocedur al duepr ocess by i mposi ng admi ni st r at i vesegregat i on on Goguen; and

( 2)

t he deci si on t hat Al l en, Al mei da,Bugbee, Gi l bl ai r , Eddi e J acques, Kel l y,Meuni er , Pl our d and Ri zzo ar e notent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t hecl ai m t hat t hey ret al i at ed agai nstGoguen i n vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r stAmendment r i ght s; and


40/57

40

( 3)

t he deci si on t hat Al l en, Al mei da,Bugbee, Fr ench, Gi l bl ai r ,Eddi e J acques, Kel l y, Meuni er , Pl our dand Ri zzo ar e not ent i t l ed t o qual i f i edi mmuni t y on the conspi r acy cl ai m.

R. 76 at 1- 2.

I n t hei r summary j udgment mot i on, however , t he def endantsur ged that t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y onl y wi t hr espect t o Mr . Goguen s cl ai ms r el at ed t o t he st r i p sear ches:

Consi der i ng t he Cour t s r ecent deci si on i n

Fl or ence [ v. Boar d of Chosen Freehol der s,132 S. Ct . 1510 ( 2012) ] , i t i s not cl ear l yest abl i shed t hat t he of f i cer s i nvol ved i nst r i p sear chi ng i nmat es, i ncl udi ng those whoar e pr et r i al , upon ent r y or exi t f r om a cel li n A- pod wer e vi ol at i ng a const i t ut i onalr i ght . Any mi st ake as t o t heconst i t ut i onal i t y of t hei r acti ons wasr easonabl e.

R. 44 at 27. I n t hei r obj ect i ons t o t he r epor t andr ecommendat i on, t he def endant s at t empt ed t o expand t hei r

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y ar gument t o al l of t he cl ai ms on whi ch t heyhad mai nt ai ned t hat t hey were ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t erof l aw:

The qual i f i ed i mmuni t y st andar d i s ver ybr oad and pr ot ect s al l but t he pl ai nl yi ncompet ent or t hose who knowi ngl y vi ol atet he l aw. I n t hi s case, a di scussi on of whyt her e wer e not const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons i smade above. I n addi t i on, Def endant s Al l en,Al mei da, Bugbee, Fr ench, Eddi e J acques,Gi l bl ai r , Kel l y, Meuni er , Pl our d and Ri zzo

ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y becauset he r i ght i n quest i on was not cl ear l yest abl i shed.

R. 70 at 13 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n t hei r br i ef i ng bef or e t hi scour t , t he def endant s pr i mar i l y f ocused on t he use of st r i psear ches f or det ai nees i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. We cannotconcl ude t hat t hi s suf f i ced t o r ai se t he i ssue of t he


41/57

41

II.

Our f i r st t ask i s t o det ermi ne whet her we may

ent er t ai n t he def endant s appeal . Mr . Goguen argues t hat we

have j ur i sdi ct i on over an i nt er l ocut or y appeal f r om t he deni al

of summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y grounds onl y when t he

deni al of t he mot i on i s based on pur el y l egal gr ounds. 51 He

mai nt ai ns t her ef or e t hat we do not have j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s

appeal because t he magi st r at e j udge concl uded t hat t here were

quest i on[ s] of f act t o be r esol ved by t he f act f i nder

concer ni ng t he puni t i ve natur e of Mr . Goguen s conf i nement . 52 We

agr ee t hat appel l at e j ur i sdi cti on i s l acki ng.

A.

I n J ohnson v. J ones, 515 U. S. 304 ( 1995) , t he Supr eme

Cour t consi der ed whet her an appel l at e cour t coul d ent er t ai n an

def endant s qual i f i ed i mmuni t y wi t h r espect t o Mr . Goguen scl ai ms unr el at ed t o st r i p sear ches.

That sai d, whi l e Mr . Goguen f ocused excl usi vel y on t hi s i ssue,he does not mai nt ai n t hat t he def endant s ot her qual i f i edi mmuni t y ar gument s ar e subj ect t o f or f ei t ur e. Consequent l y, wehave consi dered t he def endant s argument s on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y

t hat ar e not r el at ed di r ectl y t o t he st r i p sear chi ng of pr et r i aldet ai nees i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. For t he r easons setf or t h i nf r a at I I . B. , however , t hese ar gument s do not al t er ourconcl usi on t hat we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on over t he pr esent appeal .

51 Appel l ee s Br . 5.

52 I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .


42/57

42

i mmedi at e appeal of a di st r i ct cour t or der denyi ng [ t he

def endant s ] mot i on f or summary j udgment when [ t ] he or der i n

quest i on r esol ved a f act - r el at ed di sput e about t he pr et r i al

r ecor d. I d. at 307. Gui ded by t he l anguage of t he st at ut e

aut hor i zi ng appel l at e r evi ew ( 28 U. S. C. 1291) , t he nar r owness

of t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne, and i t s deci si on i n Mi t chel l

v. For syt h, 472 U. S. 511 ( 1985) , i n whi ch i t had r ecogni zed t he

deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y as an appeal abl e or der , t he Cour t

concl uded t hat a def endant , ent i t l ed t o i nvoke a qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y def ense, may not appeal a di st r i ct cour t s summary

j udgment or der i nsof ar as t hat or der deter mi nes whether or not

t he pr et r i al r ecor d set s f or t h a genui ne i ssue of f act f or

t r i al . J ohnson, 515 U. S. at 31920.

Begi nni ng wi t h St el l a v. Kel l ey, 63 F. 3d 71 ( 1st Ci r .

1995) , we have expl ored t he cont our s and conf i nes of J ohnson s

hol di ng. I n St el l a, we obser ved t hat ,

on t he one hand, a di st r i ct cour t s pr et r i alr ej ect i on of a pr of f er ed qual i f i ed i mmuni t ydef ense r emai ns i mmedi at el y appeal abl e as acol l at er al or der t o t he ext ent t hat i t t ur ns

on a pur e i ssue of l aw, not wi t hst andi ng t heabsence of a f i nal j udgment . On t he otherhand, a di str i ct cour t s pr et r i al r ej ect i onof a qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense i s noti mmedi at el y appeal abl e t o t he extent t hat i tt ur ns on ei t her an i ssue of f act or an i ssueper cei ved by t he t r i al cour t t o be an i ssueof f act . I n such a si t uat i on, t he movant


43/57

43

must awai t t he ent r y of f i nal j udgmentbef or e appeal i ng t he adver se r ul i ng.

The bot t om l i ne, t hen, i s si mpl y t hi s:a summar y j udgment or der whi ch deter mi nest hat t he pr et r i al r ecor d set s f or t h agenui ne i ssue of f act , as di st i ngui shed f r oman order t hat det er mi nes whet her cer t ai ngi ven f act s demonst r at e, under cl ear l yest abl i shed l aw, a vi ol at i on of somef eder al l y pr ot ect ed r i ght , i s not r evi ewabl eon demand.

I d. at 74 ( emphasi s added) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . 53

We had an oppor t uni t y t o appl y J ohnson agai n i n D azv.

Mar t nez, 112 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . I n t hat case, t he

pl ai nt i f f s sued def endant D az, a r ogue pol i ce of f i cer , and hi s

super vi sor , Toms Vzquez Ri ver a, f or t he per sonal i nj ur i es and

t he wr ongf ul deat h of a f ami l y member st emmi ng f r om def endant

D az s use of hi s weapon. Vzquez moved f or summar y j udgment on

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y gr ounds, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

mot i on, and Vzquez appeal ed. We not ed t hat , under J ohnson and

St el l a, . . . a def endant who, l i ke Vzquez, has unsuccessf ul l y

sought summary j udgment based on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s permi t t ed

t o appeal t he r esul t ant deni al on an i nt er l ocut or y basi s onl y t o

53 See al so Behr ens v. Pel l et i er , 516 U. S. 299, 313 ( 1996)( J ohnson r eaf f i r med t hat summary j udgment determi nat i ons ar eappeal abl e when t hey r esol ve a di sput e concer ni ng an abst r acti ssu[ e] of l aw r el at i ng t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. ( al t er at i on i nor i gi nal ) ) .


44/57

44

t he extent t hat t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense t ur ns upon a

pur el y l egal quest i on. I d. at 3 ( emphasi s added) . We

concl uded t hat Vzquez s appeal wi t her s i n t he hot gl ar e of

t hese pr ecedent s. I d. at 4. We expl ai ned:

[ W] e ar e l ef t wi t h Vzquez s assever at i ont hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng hi smot i on f or summar y j udgment because,r egar dl ess of l egal t heor y, t he evi dence wasi nsuf f i ci ent t o establ i sh del i ber at ei ndi f f er ence on hi s par t , and, t hus, he wasent i t l ed ( at t he l east) t o qual i f i edi mmuni t y. But J udge Laf f i t t e r ej ect ed t hi sargument on t he basi s t hat t he recordcont ai ned cont r over t ed f act s and t hat , i f af act f i nder wer e t o r esol ve t hose di sput esf avor abl y t o t he pl ai nt i f f s, he coul d t henf i nd t hat Vzquez s super vi si on of t hedi sci pl i nar y af f ai r s bur eau was so pat het i ct hat hi s conduct const i t ut ed del i ber at ei ndi f f er ence t o t he pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s.Si nce Vzquez does not argue that t he f act s

asser t ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s, even i fal t oget her t r ue, f ai l t o show del i ber at ei ndi f f er ence - he ar gues i nst ead what hi scounsel t ermed at oral argument t he absenceof f acts, i . e. , t hat t he f acts asser t ed byt he pl ai nt i f f s ar e unt r ue, unpr oven, war r anta di f f er ent spi n, t el l onl y a smal l par t oft he st or y, and ar e pr esent ed out of cont ext- t he di st r i ct cour t s det er mi nat i on i s notr evi ewabl e on an i nt er l ocut or y appeal .

I d. at 4- 5 ( emphasi s added) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) .

Two of our r ecent opi ni ons speak di r ect l y t o t hi s

i ssue i n f act ual scenar i os cl osel y aki n t o t hat pr esent ed her e.

The f i r st of t hese i s Cady v. Wal sh, 753 F. 3d 348 ( 1st Ci r .


45/57

45

2014) . I n t hat case, Cady br ought an act i on on behal f of her

son, Paul Gal ambos, af t er Gal ambos di ed f r om sel f - i nf l i ct ed

i nj ur i es t hat he suf f er ed whi l e he was a pr et r i al det ai nee at

t he Cumber l and Count y J ai l ( CCJ ) . I d. at 349. Cady al l eged

t hat t he def endant s had been del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o her

son s medi cal needs whi l e he was det ai ned at CCJ ; t he

def endant s, i n r esponse, f i l ed a mot i on f or summary j udgment , i n

whi ch t hey mai nt ai ned t hat t hey wer e pr otect ed by qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y. The di st r i ct cour t , however , di sagr eed and deni ed t he

mot i on, r easoni ng t hat t her e r emai ned mater i al and di sput ed

i ssues of f act as t o t he cl ai ms agai nst al l t hr ee i ndi vi dual s

whi ch pr ecl uded t he gr ant of i mmuni t y. I d. at 350. The

def endant s subsequent l y appeal ed.

Bef or e thi s cour t , Cady ar gued t hat , under J ohnson, we

l acked j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew t he appeal . We t her ef or e began

our anal ysi s of t he j ur i sdi ct i onal i ssue wi t h J ohnson:

Because t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ensei s, i n par t , an i mmuni t y f r om t r i al as wel las an i mmuni t y f r om damage awar ds, a pr e-t r i al deni al of t he def ense may, i n some

cases, be i mmedi at el y appeal abl e. . . . TheJ ohnson Cour t hel d t hat a di st r i ct cour t sconcl usi on t hat a summary j udgment r ecor d i na qual i f i ed i mmuni t y case r ai sed a genui nei ssue of f act as t o whet her t he def endant swer e i nvol ved i n t he al l eged event s was noti mmedi at el y appeal abl e under t he col l at er alor der doct r i ne.


46/57

46

J ohnson r el i ed i n par t on t he

separ abi l i t y r equi r ement of t he col l at er alor der doct r i ne. The Cour t r easoned:

Wher e . . . a def endant si mpl ywant s t o appeal a di st r i ct cour t sdet er mi nat i on t hat t he evi dence i ssuf f i ci ent t o per mi t a par t i cul arf i ndi ng of f act af ter t r i al , i twi l l of t en pr ove di f f i cul t t o f i ndany such separ at e quest i on - -one t hat i s s i gni f i cant l ydi f f erent f rom the f act - rel atedl egal i ssues that l i kel y under l i et he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m on t hemer i t s.

Quest i ons of evi dent i ar y suf f i ci ency - -i . e. , whet her t he r ecor d i s capabl e ofsuppor t i ng a par t i cul ar f actual f i ndi ng,r at her t han a par t i cul ar l egal concl usi on - -ar e not suf f i ci ent l y di st i nct t o war r anti nt er l ocut or y appeal . I f appel l at e cour t swer e t o over l ook thi s separ abi l i t y pr obl em

i n t he cont ext of f act - based qual i f i edi mmuni t y appeal s and accept j ur i sdi ct i on,t hose cour t s may wel l be f aced wi t happr oxi mat el y t he same f act ual i ssue agai n,af t er t r i al , and i nt er l ocut or y r evi ew woul dpr ove an unwi se use of appel l at e resour ces.

I d. at 35859 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng J ohnson, 515 U. S. at

314, 31617; Ml odzi nski v. Lewi s, 648 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ) .

I n Cady, we f aul t ed t he def endant s f or f ai l i ng t o

devel op t he argument t hat , even dr awi ng al l t he i nf er ences as

t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded a j ur y per mi ssi bl y coul d, t hey ar e


47/57

47

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. I d. at 35960. We

acknowl edged t hat t her e had been cases i n whi ch the def endants

had accept ed as t r ue t he pl ai nt i f f s ver si on of t he f act s ( and

t he r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om t hose f act s) , and we had

exer ci sed j ur i sdi cti on. I d. at 360 ( ci t i ng Ml odzi nski , 648 F. 3d

at 28) . The def endant s i n Cady, however , had not done so;

i nst ead, t hei r br i ef i ng di sput ed bot h t he f act s i dent i f i ed by

t he magi st r at e j udge as wel l as t he i nf er ences pr of f er ed by t he

pl ai nt i f f and deemed r easonabl e by t he magi st r at e j udge. I d.

We expl ai ned:

Wi t h r espect t o each i ndi vi dualdef endant , t he def endant s br i ef i ng obj ect st o t he way t he di st r i ct cour t const r ued t hef act s and ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t andmagi st r at e j udge er r ed i n t hei r concl usi ons

as t o what a r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd.Those f act - based ar guments ar e i next r i cabl yi nt er t wi ned wi t h what ever pur el y l egal cont ent i ons ar e cont ai ned i n t he def endant sbr i ef s: wer e we t o at t empt t o separ at e t hel egal f r om t he f actual i n or der t o addr essonl y t hose ar gument s over whi ch we mi ghtper mi ssi bl y exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on, we si mpl ywoul d not know wher e t o begi n. . . . [ T] hedef endant s br i ef r epeat edl y at t acks t hedi st r i ct cour t s f act ual concl usi ons, maki ng

no ef f or t t o separ at e f act - based ar gument sf r om pur el y l egal ones.

I d. The def endant s f act - based chal l enge[ s] , we expl ai ned,

woul d . . . not def eat j ur i sdi ct i on i f [ t hey] wer e advanced i n

t he al t er nat i ve. But nowher e i n t he def endant s br i ef does


48/57

48

t her e appear any devel oped argument t hat t he def endants ar e

ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment even i f t he di st r i ct cour t s

concl usi ons about t he r ecor d wer e cor r ect . I d. at 361. We

t her ef or e concl uded t hat , [ b] ecause t he def endant s f ai l [ ed] t o

pose even t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y quest i on i n a manner t hat woul d

per mi t us t o concl ude t hat t he answer t o i t does not depend

upon whose account of t he f act s i s cor r ect , we l ack[ ed] t he

aut hor i t y t o pr ovi de an answer . I d. ( quot i ng St el l a, 63 F. 3d

at 75) .

Penn v. Escor si o, 764 F. 3d 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ,

pet i t i on f or cer t . f i l ed, 83 U. S. L. W. 3586 ( U. S. Dec. 15, 2014)

( No. 14- 709) , i s our l at est subst ant i ve deci si on on t he subj ect .

As wi t h Cady, Penn i nvol ved al l egat i ons t hat cor r ect i ons

of f i cer s wer e del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t he ser i ous medi cal

needs of a pr et r i al det ai nee, Lal l i , and t he def endant of f i cer s

had moved f or summar y j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y gr ounds.

The def endant s di d not di sput e t hat cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw at

t he t i me Lal l i at t empt ed sui ci de di ct at ed of f i cer s must t ake

some reasonabl e measur es t o t hwart a known, subst ant i al r i sk

t hat a pr e- t r i al det ai nee wi l l at t empt sui ci de. I d. at 105.

Rat her , we expl ai ned,

Def endant Wi nsl ow ar gues he was notdel i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent , and t her ef or e di d


49/57

49

not vi ol at e Lal l i s ri ght s because t hesummar y j udgment r ecor d does not suppor t

f i ndi ng a genui ne i ssue as t o whet herWi nsl ow act ual l y knew of t he r i sk [ t hatLal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de] or whet herWi nsl ow was del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t hatr i sk. Si mi l ar l y, Def endant Escor si o ar guesshe was not del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t oLal l i s Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s becauseshe t ook some act i on t o aver t t he r i sk ofharm. But t hese di scussi ons nowheredevel op t he ar gument t hat , even dr awi ng al lt he i nf er ences as t he di st r i ct cour tconcl uded a j ur y per mi ssi bl y coul d, t hey ar eent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. I nst ead, Wi nsl ow s ar gument s t ake i ssue wi t ht he di st r i ct cour t s f actual det er mi nat i onsas t o hi s knowl edge of r i sk and hi s ef f or t s- - or l ack t her eof - - t o abat e t hat r i sk.Si mi l ar l y, Escor si o s argument s di sput e thecour t s f act ual f i ndi ng t hat she may havet aken essent i al l y no act i on t o aver t t her i sk Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de when sher et ur ned hi m t o Cel l 135.

As we r ecent l y st ated i n Cady, t hesef act - based chal l enge[ s] woul d, of cour se,not def eat j ur i sdi cti on i f . . . advanced i nt he al t er nat i ve. But nowher e i n t hedef endant s br i ef does t her e appear anydevel oped argument t hat t he def endants ar eent i t l ed t o summary j udgment even i f t hedi st r i ct cour t s concl usi ons about t her ecor d were cor r ect . As such, we have nobasi s on whi ch t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on overwhet her Def endant s vi ol at ed Lal l i s cl ear l y

est abl i shed r i ght s t hr ough del i ber at ei ndi f f er ence t o t he r i sk t hat he woul dat t empt sui ci de.

I d. at 111 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( f oot not e omi t t ed)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .


50/57

50

B.

Our r evi ew of t he def endant s br i ef i ng bef or e t hi s

cour t convi nces us t hat t hei r ar gument s suf f er f r om t he same

i nf i r mi t i es as t hose of t he def endant s i n St el l a, D az, Cady,

and Penn. I n t hei r r eci t at i on of t he f act s and subst ant i ve

argument s, t he def endant s r epeatedl y i gnore evi dence, and

r easonabl e i nf er ences t her ef r om, on whi ch t he magi st r ate j udge

based her concl usi on t hat t her e wer e genui ne i ssues of mat er i al

f act concer ni ng whet her t he def endant s act i ons wer e puni t i ve

and r et al i at or y.

By way of exampl e onl y, t he def endant s f ai l t o

acknowl edge t he di r ect evi dence t hat Of f i cer Ri zzo and

Maj or Al l en bot h wer e usi ng admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on as a

means of r et al i at i ng agai nst Mr . Goguen f or hi s f i l i ng of

gr i evances and use of t he cour t s. 54 Mor eover , wi t h r espect to

t he i nci dent on J une 23, t he def endant s never acknowl edge t hr ee

key pi eces of evi dence t hat poi nt t o the concl usi on t hat

54 See R. 83 ( Goguen Dep. ) at 62 ( r ecount i ng Of f i cer Ri zzo s

st atement t hat he woul d do whatever i t t akes i n my per sonalpower t o make sur e you spend t he r est of your t i me i n A[ - ]pod ) ; i d. at 17 ( r el at i ng Maj or Al l en s di sr upt i on ofMr . Goguen s cal l wi t h t he f eder al magi st r ate j udge andpl acement of Mr . Goguen i n A- pod f ol l owi ng Maj or Al l en sdi scover y t hat Mr . Goguen had been t hr eat eni ng of f i cer s wi t hl awsui t s) .


51/57

51

Mr . Goguen s i ni t i al pl acement i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on was

r et al i at or y: ( 1) Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed t hat he di d not hi ng t o

i nt er f er e wi t h t he cel l sear ch or pr ovoke t he of f i cer s i nvol ved,

but i t was Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r who yel l ed and cur sed at hi m; ( 2)

t he of f i cer s ci t ed t hi s ( di sput ed) l ack of cooper at i on as t he

r eason f or t r ansf er r i ng Mr . Goguen t o A- pod; and ( 3) t he sear ch

t ook pl ace t he same day t hat Mr . Goguen t est i f i ed agai nst

Of f i cer Gi l bl ai r wi t h r espect t o t he compl ai nt of a f el l ow

i nmat e. The def endant s al so i gnor e evi dence poi nt i ng t o a

r et al i at or y pl acement i n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on f ol l owi ng

t he di sput e over t he J ul y 15 bunk assi gnment s. The def endant s

r epeat t hr oughout t hei r br i ef t hat Mr . Goguen r ef used

Of f i cer Ri zzo s or der t o t ake t he t op bunk. Mr . Goguen,

however , expl i ci t l y r ef ut ed t hi s i n hi s deposi t i on. Yet , t he

basi s f or Mr . Goguen s di sci pl i nar y act i on - - and hi s pl acement

i n A- pod - - was hi s f ai l ur e t o obey an or der . Fi nal l y, i n

addi t i on t o t hei r f ai l ur e t o acknowl edge cri t i cal evi dence, t he

def endant s br i ef expl i ci t l y quest i ons t he bases f or some of t he

di str i ct cour t s f i ndi ngs. 55 Li ke t he def endant s i n Cady, i t i s

55 See Appel l ant s Br . 3839 ( Whi l e t he Recommended Deci si onst at ed t hat Al l en had di r ect over si ght or i nvol vement r el at ed t oone or mor e i mposi t i ons of admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on, Rec.Dec. , p. 45, t her e i s no evi dence t o t hi s ef f ect . ) ; i d. at 41


52/57

52

cl ear t hat t he def endant s br i ef i ng obj ect s t o t he way t he

di st r i ct cour t const r ued t he f act s. 753 F. 3d at 360. They

make no pur el y l egal cont ent i ons t hat we ar e abl e t o

separ at e f r om t hese f actual asser t i ons. I d.

Af t er Mr . Goguen r ai sed t he i ssue of our j ur i sdi ct i on

i n hi s r esponsi ve br i ef , t he def endant s di d acknowl edge the rul e

t hat t hey coul d seek i mmedi at e r evi ew onl y i f t he di st r i ct

cour t s j udgment t ur n[ ed] on an i ssue of l aw. 56 They

mai nt ai ned, however , t hat , [ i ] f t he deni al of qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y was based on f act ual i ssues, t he deci si on i s st i l l

r evi ewabl e i f qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s war r ant ed on t he pl ai nt i f f s

ver si on of t he f act s t oget her wi t h f act s t hat ar e not

di sput ed. 57

( The basi s f or t he due pr ocess cl ai m agai nst Gi l bl ai r andMeuni er i s t hat t hey al l egedl y wr ot e f al se r epor t s based on t hecel l sear ch on J une 23, 2011, t hat r esul t ed i n Goguen bei ng puti n admi ni st r at i ve segr egat i on. Rec. Dec. , p. 52. Ther e i s noevi dence t o suppor t t hi s al l egat i on, t hough. ) ; i d. at 48 n. 6( Whi l e t he Recommended Deci si on st at es t hat t he phot ogr aphi cevi dence suppor t s Goguen s cont ent i on t hat one cannot wat ch acel l sear ch f r om downstai r s . . . , Rec. Dec. , p. 9, i t i s

uncl ear how t he cour t made t hi s det er mi nat i on f r om t hi s onephot ogr aph especi al l y when i t i s unknown where Goguen s cel l wasl ocat ed. ) .

56 Repl y Br . 6 ( quot i ng Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263, 267( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) .

57 I d. ( quot i ng Cr uz- Gmez v. Ri ver a- Her nndez, 444 F. 3d 29, 33n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( emphasi s omi t t ed) ) .


53/57

53

The probl em f or t he def endant s i s t hat , i n t hei r

r epl y, t hey di d not change t ack, accept t he di st r i ct cour t s

f actual f i ndi ngs, and make an argument based on t hose f i ndi ngs.

I nst ead, t hey mai nt ai ned t hat Mr . Goguen s r eci t at i on of f act s

shoul d be i gnor ed because i t r el i ed, i n l ar ge par t , on t he

unsworn al l egat i ons set f or t h i n hi s second amended compl ai nt .

I t i s t r ue t hat Mr . Goguen s r eci t at i on of f act s has i t s own

i nf i rmi t i es. 58 The di st r i ct cour t , however , di d not r est i t s

f i ndi ngs on Mr . Goguen s unswor n al l egat i ons, but , i nst ead,

l ooked t o Goguen s deposi t i on t o det er mi ne whet her he ha[d]

of f er ed any sworn t est i mony t o support hi s unsworn f actual

asser t i ons. 59 I ndeed, t he def endant s character i ze many f act s as

58 We agr ee wi t h t he def endant s t hat unsworn al l egat i onscont ai ned i n a compl ai nt , wi t hout more, are not enough t o opposea pr oper l y support ed mot i on f or summary j udgment . See, e. g. ,Rui z- Rosa v. Rul l n, 485 F. 3d 150, 156 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Wesi mi l ar l y r ej ect Mr . Goguen s ar gument t hat we shoul d accept t hef act s set f or t h

Documents

Goguen v. Allen, 1st Cir. (2015)