holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis first
How later courts described this case
- holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified immunity analysis first
- stating that a case decided after the conduct in the case occurred could not have clearly established the law at the time of the conduct in this case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
HECTOR MANUEL BOSSIO, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16cv840-ECM
) (WO)
HEATH TAYLOR, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
78) and the Plaintiff’s Objections thereto. (Doc. 79).
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the
Court finds the objections to be without merit and due to be overruled.
Plaintiff Hector Manuel Bossio, Jr. (“Bossio”) filed a pro se complaint pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1983, as a pretrial detainee, asserting that his initial placement and confinement
violated his constitutional rights; that Defendants Sheriff Heath Taylor (“Taylor”) and Lt.
Steve Johnson (“Johnson”) were deliberately indifferent to his safety; and that the jail law
library is inadequate. The Defendants filed a special report which was treated as a motion
for summary judgment and as to which Bossio filed several responses.
The Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment be granted in favor of the
Defendants on all of Bossio’s claims. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the requests
for injunctive relief are moot because Bossio is no longer held at the Russell County Jail,
that Bossio failed to identify any similarly situated inmate who received favorable
treatment to support an equal protection claim, that Bossio failed to establish that he
suffered the requisite injury to support his denial of access claim, and that the Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims.
In its de novo review, this Court has reviewed the arguments and evidence to
determine whether there is a genuine dispute as to any material fact and whether the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
In his Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation Bossio makes an
assertion that his jail disciplinary report was fabricated. This assertion, however, is not
substantiated by evidence. He also advances some fact-based arguments which appear to
dispute that he made a hole in his cell wall. Bossio’s sworn complaint, however, establishes
that he removed electrical conduit from inside the wall to fashion a weapon to use on other
inmates. (Doc. 1 at 3). This admission of fact undermines several of his objections.
Specifically, this fact undermines his argument that he should not have been charged with
escape because at that time someone else was in the cell he had previously occupied and
could have made the hole and his argument that there was no safety reason to keep him
confined in a cell used to house violent offenders.
In his objections, Bossio also points to some factual assertions regarding his status
in a minority group. “To establish an equal protection claim, a prisoner must demonstrate
that (1) “he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable
treatment; and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on some constitutionally
protected interest such as race.” Jones v. Ray, 279 F.3d 944, 946–47 (11th Cir. 2001).
Bossio has not presented sufficient evidence to establish the elements of this claim.
Bossio also disputes that he received notice of a disciplinary hearing. The
Magistrate Judge declined to determine whether a fact question existed for purposes of a
due process claim because Bossio had not shown that the Defendants violated clearly
established law. This Court agrees with this analysis. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 236 (2009) (holding that courts can address the clearly established prong of qualified
immunity analysis first). The procedural due process right to receive advance warning of
disciplinary charges was recognized by the Eleventh Circuit as a matter of first impression
in Jacoby v. Baldwin Cty., 835 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016). The disciplinary
action complained of in this case occurred in February of 2016. Therefore, the law was
not clearly established at the time of the action in question, and the individual Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity. Belcher v. City of Foley, Ala., 30 F.3d 1390, 1400, n.9
(11th Cir. 1994) (stating that a case decided after the conduct in the case occurred could
not have clearly established the law at the time of the conduct in this case).
For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Objections are OVERRULED.
2. The Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and judgment is entered in
favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff on his claims.
A separate Judgment will be entered.
Done this 21st day of October, 2019.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNTIED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE