# Long v. Norris

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 3, 1991 · 929 F.2d 1111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989057

## Case

- **Full name:** Mariam LONG, Curtis Long, Anita Simmers, James Marlin Hodges, Karen Mills, and Ronnie S. Mills v. Steven NORRIS, Individually and as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, Linda Roberts, Sam Chapman, Lisa Marshall, Irene Ladd, James Worthington, Charles Jones, Ruby Spakes, Gladys Noe, Charlene Smith, Barbara Wright, Kathy Hill, Linda Shipwash, Tom Mays, Dale Roberts Evans, Angie Thomas, Charles Brown, Sheena Ward, Teresa (Last Name Unknown), and Jackie Cornell, Otie Jones, Individually and as Warden of the Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility, M.C. Hamby, Associate Warden
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 3, 1991
- **Citations:** 929 F.2d 1111; 1991 WL 43298
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Boggs
- **Judges:** Boggs, Hackett, Martin
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi, 272 F.3d 391 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989057

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[i]n the Sixth Circuit, we have not decided the degree to which prison inmates retain their freedom of association
- finding a liberty interest in visitation under Tennessee prison regulations
- applying Helms test to find state-created liberty interest in prison visitation rights

## Opinion text

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
If we are to deny qualified immunity to these prison officials based on their violation, not of the Constitution directly, but of state administrative regulations, we must find that, in 1985, all reasonable prison officials would have known that they could be personally liable for money damages if they violated a prison regulation of their own state. McIntosh v. Weinberger, 810 F.2d 1411 , 1433 n. 9 (8th Cir.1987); Dominique v. Telb, 831 F.2d 673, 676 (6th Cir. 1987).
I do not think that the state of the case law permits that conclusion. The best case for that proposition is Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 , 104 S.Ct. 3012 , 82 L,Ed.2d 139 (1984). Although that case is not a model of clarity, footnote 12 ( 468 U.S. at 194 , 104 S.Ct. at 3019 ) while clearly discounting mere violation of a regulation as the basis for any kind of liability, seems to say that a section 1983 suit sometimes can be based on a violation of a regulation that furnishes the gravamen of the action sued on, though at other times it speaks of liability “only to the extent that there is a clear violation of the statutory rights_” (emphasis added). Although the violation of the regulation led directly to and authorized the strip search that is the injury complained of, I do not think all reasonable officials would understand from Davis that they were now liable in damages for every violation of regulations. Similarly, Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 , 103 S.Ct. 864 , 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), which holds that a prison regulation can be the basis for a liberty interest protected by section 1983, was not a money damages case and does not allude to that possibility.
I therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion that refuses to allow qualified immunity from suit based on violation of the prison regulation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8989057. Public record. Not legal advice.