Tiberius Mays v. Jerome Springborn

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-3630

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; July 16, 2009; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tiberius Mays, an Illinois inmate, appeals a summary judgment from the U.S. District Court regarding his claims related to prison food and clothing, as well as claims of retaliation, strip searches, and censorship of magazine pages. The appellate court affirms the rulings on food, clothing, and magazine censorship but vacates and remands the decisions on the strip search and retaliation claims.

Mays was housed at Stateville Correctional Center in 1998 and 1999, where he and fellow inmate-employees were subjected to daily strip searches. He testified that these searches were conducted in view of other inmates, often accompanied by inappropriate comments from guards, and that latex gloves were not changed between searches. Despite filing a grievance about the public nature of the searches, which was acknowledged by prison officials, the practice persisted. Mays presented a memo from the chief of security prohibiting public searches, but guards denied acknowledging this, claiming that searches were conducted privately for safety reasons.

During one search, after showing a guard the aforementioned memo, Mays was subjected to a prolonged and humiliating search after being told that guards saw something in his anus. No contraband was ever found, and Mays testified that guards waited for him to defecate while he was restrained and inadequately clothed.

In 2000, Mays was transferred to Hill Correctional Center, where he was again strip searched, with conflicting accounts about whether it was done in view of others. At Hill, he raised concerns about the adequacy of his vegan diet, which he claimed lacked essential dietary supplements required by his religion. His grievances were met with responses indicating that the requested supplements posed security risks or were unavailable, though an administrator acknowledged the nutritional deficiencies of the vegan menu and promised improvements.

Mays raised several complaints regarding inadequate clothing and censorship while incarcerated. He alleged he was not provided with essential winter clothing items, which led to physical suffering, including frostbite symptoms. Additionally, he claimed that prison officials censored an issue of Vibe Magazine by removing pages containing an article about a violent prison riot and images of individuals purportedly making gang signs, based on a determination by the prison's publication review board.

The district court granted summary judgment on Mays’s claims related to diet and clothing, concluding that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the legitimate penological reasons for the denial of dietary supplements and that he had not demonstrated harm from his nutritional claims. The court also found that Mays had adequate winter clothing and did not show deliberate indifference from the defendants regarding his clothing needs.

Mays was permitted to proceed to trial on remaining claims, but the court ultimately granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on those claims as well. Specifically, regarding the censorship claim, the court determined that the defendants justified their actions with a legitimate penological rationale and that Mays did not provide adequate evidence to prove the censorship was an exaggerated response. The court also ruled against Mays on claims involving searches at Stateville and on a retaliation claim, citing a lack of credible evidence linking the searches to punitive intent and dismissing Mays's unsupported assertions of retaliation.

Mays contested the summary judgment on dietary supplements, arguing that he presented sufficient evidence to challenge the prison's claims regarding security threats associated with the supplements, noting their availability in other facilities, and asserting that his claims warranted a jury trial.

The district court's summary judgment on Mays's claim regarding the denial of dietary supplements was upheld. Mays argued that the court failed to consider all four factors from Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), which assess whether a prison regulation has a valid penological purpose. The court assumed the denial of supplements impeded Mays's religious exercise but clarified that the prison must provide a legitimate penological reason for such denial. The burden of proof shifted to Mays to challenge the prison's explanation after it was provided. Mays's evidence, which only indicated that other prisons allowed the supplements, was insufficient to question the prison's reasoning.

Regarding Mays's claim about the adequacy of his diet, the court initially believed he had not demonstrated harm. Mays identified medical records showing a low white blood cell count and expressed fatigue, pointing to an official's statement of inadequacy regarding his diet. Although the court's ruling was not flawless, it was affirmed because Mays failed to prove that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a significant risk. Under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show both a serious risk of harm and that officials were aware of it and did not act. Although Mays provided some evidence of harm, it did not meet the threshold for serious harm, and prison officials had acknowledged the dietary issue and taken corrective actions. Thus, their reasonable response negated claims of deliberate indifference.

Mays claims he has sufficient evidence for a trial regarding inadequate winter clothing provided by Hill, asserting that the lack of proper attire led to physical discomfort and health issues. However, this evidence does not meet the threshold for an Eighth Amendment violation, as Mays did not demonstrate prolonged exposure to the cold or serious harm beyond typical winter discomfort.

On the censorship claim, Mays argues the district court wrongly granted judgment as a matter of law, suggesting the prison's reasons for censorship were unreasonable because other materials on prison riots were available. He also alleges bias from the court during his evidence presentation. The court’s decisions are upheld, as prisons have broad authority to limit reading materials, and the existence of alternative sources does not undermine the prison's rationale for censorship. The court maintained procedural control without bias, allowing Mays to present his case adequately.

Regarding the strip search claim, Mays contends he provided enough evidence for a jury, citing daily searches in view of other inmates, cold conditions, unsanitary practices by guards, and demeaning comments made during searches. The district court erred by not allowing this claim to proceed to a jury, as the manner of the searches must comply with constitutional standards. To succeed, Mays must demonstrate that the searches were conducted in a way that was intended to humiliate or inflict psychological pain, as established in relevant case law.

Group searches are not inherently constitutional, and if the jury determined they were conducted without valid justification, Mays could prevail. Testimony indicated the searches may have been intended to harass, supported by demeaning comments from guards and unsanitary conditions. While a violation of prison rules regarding public searches alone does not constitute a constitutional violation, it could be pertinent evidence suggesting harassment intent. Mays also asserts the district court neglected to consider his claim regarding a strip search at Hill, which is remanded for consideration.

Regarding Mays's retaliation claim, he presented sufficient evidence for the jury to consider. His complaint about routine searches allegedly led to a humiliating non-routine search, which raises factual questions about retaliation. To establish a prima facie case, Mays must show that his protected complaint was a motivating factor in the subsequent actions against him. A chronology of events suggested the guards reacted to his complaint with an onerous search, although guards claimed a non-retaliatory motive. The jury could disbelieve the guards based on Mays's testimony, as credibility issues cannot be resolved through judgment as a matter of law.

Mays also challenged the district court's refusal to recruit counsel, arguing that the court did not adequately assess his competence to litigate. However, the court did consider his competence in one order, and Mays failed to demonstrate that the lack of counsel prejudiced him. If he renews his request on remand, the district court should reassess both the case's difficulty and his competence.

The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment rulings and the judgment on the censorship claim, but vacated the judgment related to the strip search and retaliation claims, remanding for further proceedings.