James Stickley v. Karl Byrd

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1672

___________________________

James Michael Stickley

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Karl Byrd, Sheriff of Faulkner County, Arkansas; Torling, Officer, Faulkner

County Detention Center; Andrews, Lt., Faulkner County Detention Center;

Andrews, Officer, Faulkner County Detention Center; Childs, Officer, Faulkner

County Detention Center; Bobby Brown, Major, Faulkner County Detention

Center Administrator; John Randall, Captain, Faulkner County Detention Center

Assistant Administrator

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

Submitted: November 16, 2012

Filed: January 14, 2013

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

James Stickley brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the

Defendants,1 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was detained

at Faulkner County Detention Center (FCDC). The district court granted the

Defendants qualified immunity in part, but denied it as to Stickley’s claim that the

Defendants’ refusal to give him adequate toilet paper violated the Fourteenth

Amendment. We reverse.

I.

Stickley was detained and awaiting trial at FCDC from January 2010 until June

2010. Pursuant to FCDC’s policy, Stickley was issued one roll of toilet paper each

week. That policy provides, in relevant part:

Personal hygiene items will be issued once a week. One roll of toilet

tissue per week will be given to each detainee. You must have the empty

spool before you will get another one. . . .

J.A. 29.

Each week, Stickley used his weekly allotment before the week’s end. When

he sought additional toilet paper, his requests were denied. Stickley filed a grievance

form, complaining that his allotment was inadequate, to which Lieutenant Andrews

responded: “Toilet tissue is issued every Wednesday[,] 1 roll per inmate. This is per

Captain[’]s orders.” J.A. 26. When Stickley depleted his weekly roll of toilet paper

before Wednesday, he showered to clean himself following a bowel movement. He

often had to wait up to thirty minutes before being allowed to do so.

1

For clarity, we refer to Sheriff Karl Byrd, Officer Torling, Lieutenant Andrews,

Officer Andrews, Officer Childs, Major Bobby Brown, and Captain John Randall

collectively as “Defendants.”

-2-

Stickley brought this § 1983 action, alleging that the deprivation of additional

toilet paper violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate sanitation and

personal hygiene. The district court denied qualified immunity to the Defendants on

this claim, concluding that “a reasonable officer would understand that, in these

circumstances, not providing additional toilet paper violated Stickley’s right to

reasonably adequate sanitation and personal hygiene during pretrial detention.”2 D.

Ct. Order of Mar. 1, 2012, at 2-3.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, viewing

the facts in the light most favorable to Stickley and drawing all reasonable inferences

in his favor. See McCaster v. Clausen, 684 F.3d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 2012). “Summary

judgment is appropriate if ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689

F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

III.

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the

burdens of litigation unless his conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Id. (quoting

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “On summary judgment,

government officials possess qualified immunity unless (1) the facts plaintiff has

shown amount to a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right violated was

2

Stickley does not challenge the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on

his claim that the FCDC’s policy of removing mattresses violated his constitutional

rights.

-3-

clearly established when the alleged misconduct occurred.” Williams v. Herron, 687

F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2012).

Because Stickley was a pretrial detainee at the time of the alleged constitutional

violation, we analyze his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the

Eighth Amendment. See Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 2010). As a

pretrial detainee, Stickley was entitled to “‘at least as great’ protection as that afforded

convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment.” Owens v. Scott Cnty. Jail, 328

F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463

U.S. 239, 244 (1983)). “Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee’s

constitutional rights are violated if the detainee’s conditions of confinement amount

to punishment.” Morris, 601 F.3d at 809. Hence, pretrial detainees “are entitled to

reasonably adequate sanitation, personal hygiene, and laundry privileges, particularly

over a lengthy course of time.” Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1045 (8th Cir.

2012) (quoting Howard v. Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989)).

Stickley broadly asserts that the denial of adequate toilet paper violated his

constitutional rights. We must, however, review the totality of the circumstances at

issue. See Morris, 601 F.3d at 810 (explaining that “[i]n considering whether the

conditions of pretrial detention are unconstitutionally punitive, we review the totality

of the circumstances of a pretrial detainee’s confinement”). Although Stickley

exhausted his supply before receiving an additional roll the following week, he was

not always without toilet paper. When he did run out of toilet paper, he was able to

clean himself by taking a shower.

The Seventh Circuit has concluded that a prisoner’s deprivation of toilet paper

for five days, though “merit[ing] some management criticism,” did not rise to the level

of a constitutional violation. See Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1234-36 (7th Cir.

1988). This holding is consistent with our precedent. See Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d

265, 268-69 (8th Cir. 1996) (no constitutional violation where pretrial detainee was

-4-

subjected to overflowed toilet for four days); Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 444-47

(8th Cir. 1995) (inmate’s deprivation of clothes, running water, hygiene supplies,

blanket, and mattress for four days did not violate inmate’s Eighth Amendment

rights). We conclude that, given the amount of toilet paper afforded him, the limited

time in which he went without toilet paper, and his ability to attend to his hygiene

needs at those times, Stickley’s constitutional rights were not violated by the denial

of additional toilet paper. See, e.g., Green v. Baron, 879 F.2d 305, 310 (8th Cir. 1989)

(noting that although detainees have a variety of rights, including rights to personal

hygiene and sanitation, “[n]ot every deprivation . . . rises to the level of punishment

under the due process clause”).

Whether the denial of a request for additional toilet paper or similar hygiene

items might in some circumstances constitute a constitutional violation is a question

we need not resolve today. We hold only that, in the circumstances presented in this

case, the Defendants’ refusal to grant Stickley’s request for additional toilet paper did

not violate any clearly established right. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to

qualified immunity.

IV.

The order denying qualified immunity is reversed, and the case is remanded to

the district court for the entry of an appropriate order. We express our appreciation

to appointed counsel for his zealous efforts on Stickley’s behalf.

______________________________

-5-