Craig Bryan Northington David Montoya and All Other Inmates Similarly Situated v. Robert Furlong, Warden Richard Marr, Assistant Warden Al Estep, Administrative Officer III L. Nutter, Capt., Endre Samu, Lt., W. Sommers, Lt., Aahb Hearing Officers G. Butler, Sgt., S. Bergman, Correctional Officers Sgt. Hostetler, Correctional Officer John Doe 1, Supervisor, Colorado Department of Corrections Laurel J. Farrell, Drug Test Unit Supervisor Cindy Silva-Burbach, Lab Technician, Colorado Department of Health and All Other Persons Presently Unknown
Docket: 96-1260
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; May 12, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue and if a copy is attached to the citing document or provided during oral argument. In the case of Northington and Montoya v. various prison officials, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court's summary judgment favoring the defendants, prison officials at the Limon Correctional Facility. The plaintiffs, inmates, faced disciplinary actions for refusing to provide urine samples for drug testing or for testing positive, resulting in loss of visiting privileges, good time credit, and placement in punitive segregation. They alleged that the testing was harassment, racially discriminatory, retaliatory, and non-random, raising constitutional claims. A magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for the defendants, asserting no constitutional violation occurred and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. However, upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court's ruling did not sufficiently address all claims, particularly the assertion that the urine testing program was not truly random, which could violate the Fourth Amendment as established in Lucero. The circuit court's review of the summary judgment is de novo, meaning it involves re-evaluating the case without deference to the lower court's conclusions.
Defendants may subject Northington and Montoya to drug tests only if those tests are genuinely random as per the standard established in Lucero. If a prisoner provides evidence questioning the randomness, the government must prove that the tests are random. The government has shown that the urinalysis in this case was randomly selected; however, Northington and Montoya have presented evidence suggesting they were tested more frequently than other inmates, indicating possible retaliation for lawsuits against prison officials. This evidence is sufficient to challenge the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Montoya detailed numerous instances of drug testing, starting shortly after filing a lawsuit against a prison official. He reported being tested repeatedly, with officials claiming it was due to orders from the Shift Commander, despite other inmates not facing the same scrutiny. Montoya’s complaints about the unequal testing were dismissed by officials, who asserted their authority to require testing at will. Additionally, Montoya highlighted that both he and Northington faced targeted testing due to their legal actions. After a positive test result, Montoya contested the accuracy of the test, claiming it was a false positive, but he faced procedural issues during the hearing, including the absence of an Inmate Representative and lack of access to supporting documents that could validate his claims regarding testing procedures.
Montoya's affidavit, part of the opposition to summary judgment, includes specific allegations of misconduct by Defendant Samu. Montoya recounts serving a complaint to Samu during a hearing, where Samu reacted aggressively, claiming Montoya had no rights as an inmate, and threatened potential punitive actions against him. Following the filing of a complaint against Defendants Furlong and Samu, Montoya was arrested and coerced into providing a urine sample under false pretenses regarding visitation privileges. Over the next ten months, he was subjected to multiple urine tests, none of which indicated drug use.
Northington also presented evidence of retaliatory urine testing linked to his advocacy for fellow inmates. His conflict with defendants escalated after a stabbing incident involving a Hispanic inmate. Following a disciplinary hearing where Northington represented another inmate, he was arrested, and the facility investigator indicated a retaliatory intent against him for representing minority inmates. Northington later faced constant urinalysis as retribution for this representation. On January 28, 1994, after reaching out to Furlong regarding another inmate's disciplinary matter, Northington was arrested and ordered to provide a urine sample despite his medical condition, which led to complications in complying with the order when his requests for assistance were denied.
On February 10, 1994, Captain Jarvis notified Northington that the January 29 drug test was not randomly selected. Northington underwent additional tests on March 15 and June 1, 1994. During a disciplinary hearing concerning Northington's failure to provide a urine sample on January 29, hearing officer Nutter was objected to by Northington due to a prior statement made by Nutter suggesting he could retaliate against Northington by tampering with the test results. Following Northington's objection, Nutter was replaced.
On July 28, 1994, after a court appearance, Northington was arrested by Captain Waide without explanation and placed in restraints in a dry cell under constant observation. Northington alleged that this was retaliation for his ongoing lawsuits against LCF officials; Waide did not deny these claims. At a hearing related to Northington’s arrest, prison officials provided conflicting reasons for his dry cell placement, and his urine sample from that day tested positive for marijuana. During a later hearing, Defendant Farrell stated that no one could confirm the accuracy of the drug test results.
Northington was again tested on November 15 and December 15, 1994. When Northington inquired about the results of his prior test, Defendant Hostetler indicated that Nutter had ordered the drug test based on unspecified "reasonable suspicion," which Hostetler could not clarify.
The court found that there is a genuine issue regarding whether the urine tests were genuinely random, opposing the district court's summary judgment ruling. Northington and Montoya adequately objected to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, citing their lack of opportunity for essential discovery, and identified specific areas for further inquiry. Their verified statements met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The court also addressed an argument by Northington and Montoya that the drug tests constituted a violation of their constitutional rights. The court ruled this argument as meritless, affirming that urine testing is an established security measure in prisons and does not violate constitutional rights, provided the tests are conducted randomly.
Northington and Montoya's claim of racially discriminatory conduct in the urine testing program was found to be based solely on conclusory allegations, which do not meet the standard required to overcome summary judgment. The district court's summary judgment favoring the defendants is reversed specifically regarding Northington and Montoya’s claim of non-random drug testing. However, the court affirms the summary judgment on all other claims. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings aligned with this ruling. The submission of this order and judgment is without oral argument, as determined by the reviewing panel, and it is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines, with citation permitted under certain conditions.
