Thomas v. McNeil
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17419 (11th Cir. 2010)
Ten inmates incarcerated at Florida State Prison, all of whom had serious mental illnesses, brought a §1983 case against various officers and employees of Florida's Department of Corrections ("DOC"). The inmates alleged that the used of chemical agents on inmates with mental illness and other vulnerabilities violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The inmates settled their damages claims against the individual correctional officers responsible for administering the chemical agents. The court then held a 5 day bench trial on the remaining claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the two defendants allegedly responsible for the policy which authorized the use of chemical agents on inmates at the prison. District court entered judgment in favor of two of the remaining six plaintiffs (4 had been dismissed from the suit) concluding that the repeated sprayings inmates Thomas and McKinney received violated the 8th Amendment. Those 2 plaintiffs demonstrated that they were unable to conform their behavior to prison standards due to their mental illness such that the use of force for discipline amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The court permanently enjoined the defendants, in their official capacities, from allowing the non-spontaneous use of chemicals on Thomas and McKinney without first consulting with DOC's trained mental health staff to evaluate their mental health status. Defendants appealed challenging the finding of an 8th Amendment violation and the propriety of a permanent injunction. One plaintiff died during the pendency of the appeal, thereby rendering the relief he obtained moot. That plaintiff may still be a prevailing party for purposes of determining attorneys' fees and costs in the district court proceeding, however. Defendants asserted district court erred in treating case as a "condition of confinement" case rather than "excessive use of force" case. Excessive use of force required that defendants act "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm" while "condition of confinement" requires only that defendants act with "deliberate indifference." Although Defendants technically raised this issue before final judgment, they wanted until after the trial court entered its findings of fact using a "condition of confinement" standard to assert it. Thus, the appellate court found this "last ditch attempt" at error preservation was inadequate and untimely. The issue should have been raised before or during trial. Appellate court found there was no clear error in the lower court's factual findings that McKinney had decompensated at times when he was sprayed and afterwards and had in fact suffered objective harm as a result. The facts also established the subjective harm component that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm to McKinney. The court also found that the injunction was properly entered as there was the likelihood of irreparable harm to McKinney in the form of continued sprayings. Additionally, the scope of the relief was not too broad and unworkable. The district court's order was affirmed in all respects.