16-b-2 Constitutional Bases for Section 1983 Claims

• Library: A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (2020 Edition)

16-B-2. Constitutional Bases for Section 1983 Claims

Not every violation of state law or prison regulations is a constitutional violation that you can challenge using Section 1983. For example, a prison may have a regulation stating that all general population prisoners are allowed five phone calls each week. This "right to five phone calls" is not a constitutional right. If the prison suddenly allows prisoners to make only one call each week, you won't be able to sue using Section 1983. Instead, you may want to challenge that change in privileges through your prison's grievance system or in a state court.⁴² Similarly, if a prison guard harms you or your property by acting negligently (carelessly), you won't be able to sue using Section 1983. Instead, you may be able to sue using state tort law.⁴³ For example, the Supreme Court has said that in a case where a prisoner ordered a package through the mail and the package was lost because a prison official didn't follow proper mail procedures, the official's action wasn't enough for a Section 1983 claim because this wasn't a failure of the state's procedures but rather one person's failure.⁴⁴ Instead, the Court said that the prisoner should sue through state tort law, because the state already had a process that covered situations like this where state actors did something carelessly or recklessly that resulted in a prisoner losing property. ⁴⁵ Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that where an inmate was injured because he slipped on a pillow that a sheriff's deputy negligently left on a stairway, this was not a constitutional violation that could lead to a Section 1983 case, but a case that was better left to state tort law.⁴⁶On the other hand, if a prison guard were to intentionally push you down the stairs, or you could prove that the guards in a prison had an unofficial game of intentionally leaving objects on stairs to injure people and you were injured as a result, you might be able to bring a Section 1983 claim in that case.

The next part of this Section begins with a general discussion of prisoners' constitutional rights and the "reasonably related" test (Turner test). Parts B(2)(b) through B(2)(g) explain different constitutional rights that prisoners have and which specific constitutional amendments give them those rights. Make sure you read the other chapters of the JLM that also talk about these particular rights. Also, remember that your claim might involve violations of more than one constitutional right. Think about your situation from as many different angles as possible.

(a) General Framework for Prisoners' Constitutional Rights

As discussed earlier, keep in mind that your constitutional rights are not absolute. The government is allowed to take away some of your rights in order to run the prison more safely or smoothly. When you sue government officials or agencies for violating your rights, the officials or agencies must explain to the court why they acted that way. The reasons they give must have some rational relationship to the violation of your rights. The court then balances your constitutional rights against the reasons given by the defendants for taking away some of those rights. Most of the time, courts accept the prison officials' explanation for the violation and rule against the prisoner.

In your claim, you should emphasize why your right is important and reasonable and why the prison officials' actions were unnecessary or unreasonable. Just saying that your rights were violated is usually not enough. You must try to expect and respond to the arguments that the prison will make about the need for security or order.

One of the leading Supreme Court cases dealing with prisoners' constitutional rights is Turner v. Safley.⁴⁷ In Turner, the Supreme Court held that when a prison regulation has an impact on a prisoner's constitutional rights, the regulation is still valid if it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." ⁴⁸ To be related to a "penological interest" means to be related to the punishment or crime and prison management. A penological interest is legitimate if it is a valid and justifiable concern for the prison and/or the officials operating the prison. Legitimate penological interests may include concerns for safety, discipline, effective punishment, and other management issues. Under the Turner test (also called the "reasonably related" test), a court will compare the importance of the state's valid penological interests to the impact of the state's actions on your rights.

The Turner test has been used in cases challenging both formal and informal prison policies and practices. It has also been used in cases challenging individual actions.⁴⁹ The test applies both to prison regulations and to actions taken by prison officials. Note that Turner does not apply to claims of racial discrimination, ⁵⁰ Eighth Amendment violations, ⁵¹ restrictions on private religious exercise, ⁵² or some procedural due process claims. ⁵³

To use the Turner test, courts ask if a regulation (or action) is "reasonably related" to the government's interests. They do this by looking at four factors:

(1) Whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the government's reason for it; ⁵⁴

(2) Whether you still have other ways of exercising your constitutional right despite the regulation; ⁵⁵

(3) Whether there will be a "ripple effect" ⁵⁶ on the rights of others if you are allowed to exercise the right; ⁵⁷ and

(4) Whether there is an easy way to meet the regulation's goal without limiting your constitutional right. ⁵⁸

In most cases challenging prison regulations, the government wins. This is because the Turner test only requires the government to have a rational explanation (one that makes sense) for the regulation. This is not a very high standard for the government to meet. The government needs to show that there is a connection between the regulation you are challenging and the purpose it is supposed to accomplish.⁵⁹ However, it does not need to show that the regulation is better than other regulations that would be less restrictive. This means that even if there are other potential regulations that would help the government achieve its goals without impacting prisoners' rights, the government can still pass the Turner test.

In the Turner case, the Court applied this test to a prison regulation banning prisoners from sending or receiving letters from prisoners at other prisons (not including family members). The prison argued that letters between prisoners could be used to plan escapes or assaults. Looking at factor (1), the Court first found that preventing escapes and assaults was a valid government interest, and that banning letters between prisoners was a rational way to help prevent escapes and assaults. As for factor (2), the Court noted that prisoners still had other ways to receive letters from anyone besides other prisoners. Under factor (3), The Court found that allowing prisoners to correspond with other prisoners would have a significant "ripple effect" on others, because it might threaten the safety of other prisoners and prison guards. Finally, looking at factor (4), the Court found that there was no simple alternative way of ensuring that escapes and assaults were not planned through letters between prisoners. After going through the four factors, the Court held that the regulation was "reasonably related" to legitimate interests in security. As a result, the Court held that the prison could keep the rule in place even though it interfered with prisoners' First Amendment rights to free expression and communication. ⁶⁰

However, Turner also decided that a regulation preventing prisoners from marrying unless the superintendent found "compelling circumstances" was not "reasonably related" to legitimate security concerns. ⁶¹ The prison had claimed that the regulation was justified because "love triangles" among prisoners might lead to violence. The Court stated that there was no reasonable relationship between preventing marriage and preventing violence, since "love triangles" were just as likely when prisoners were unmarried. The Court also mentioned that a prisoner's marriage was generally a private decision that would not have a "ripple effect" on others. The Court said that less restrictive regulations on prisoner marriages, such as those used at many other prisons, would still meet the concerns of prison officials.

As you can see from these examples, you need to carefully consider how to argue your claim in terms of the four factors. You have a better chance of success if a regulation completely deprives you of the ability to exercise your right, since such a regulation fails factor (2). In these cases, you should suggest other rules that could accomplish the same prison goal without completely violating your rights. Comparing the bad practices of your prison with the better practices of other prisons may also be helpful.

Parts B(2)(b) through B(2)(g) address specific constitutional rights and give examples of claims brought under Section 1983 by prisoners. Many of these rights are addressed in other parts of the JLM in much more detail. Make sure you read any other relevant JLM chapters.

(b) First Amendment Claims

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that:

Congress shall...