Prisons & Jails – Civil Detainee Challenges Confinement Conditions

Listen to this article

Matherly v. Andrews (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-134-17, 35 pp.) (Diaz, J.) No. 16-6473, June 8, 2017; USDC at Raleigh, N.C. (Britt, J.) 4th Cir.

Holding: A plaintiff committed to FCI Butner as a “sexually dangerous person” under the Adam Walsh Act loses his suit contending that he is subjected to many of the same conditions of confinement as criminal detainees in federal custody at Butner.

Detainee Conditions

We first consider plaintiff’s arguments as to the dismissal of his Bureau of Prisons’ policies claims, his commingling with prisoners claims, and his claim for more pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He bears the burden to show the lack of a reasonable relationship between a condition of confinement and a legitimate non-punitive governmental objective upon the individual challenging the condition.

Plaintiff says he’s being punished because the BOP double-bunks him with another civil detainee, forces him to wear the same uniform as a prisoner and limits his purchases at the commissary and his options on television to those of a prisoner. All of these conditions are incident to the legitimate non-punitive governmental objective to confine individuals like plaintiff who are sexually dangerous. The district court correctly dismissed the BOP policies claim.

As to commingling with prisoners, even accepting that prisoners’ taunts are objectionable, they don’t offend the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff has no standing to pursue a claim that his contact with prisoners likely could cause him harm at some future point. The district court did not err in dismissing the commingling claims as well as the FLSA claim for the federal minimum wage. Plaintiff does not qualify as an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA.

The court also affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s strip searches and mass shakedown claims, mail review claims and educational and vocational programs claims. There’s no genuine dispute of material fact that the strip searches and mass shakedowns are reasonably related to the legitimate non-punitive governmental objective to keep FCI Butner safe. BOP officials made the reasonable decision to treat prisoners and civil detainees the same when it comes to strip searches and mass shakedowns.

Mail Review

There is a multi-level review process for mail that is flagged as problematic. The screener looks for symbols and phrases that the untrained eye might not recognize as holding a sexual meaning. Mailroom employees who handle publications have had formal training on the “parameters” they should work within, such as looking for things that depict sexual deviance and glorify victimization of others.

The BOP system reflects reasoned decision making on how to rationally handle incoming and outgoing mail at Butner. We are satisfied that the BOP can, consistent with the First Amendment, censor outgoing non-legal mail for material that either threatens the public or stymies the treatment of detainees under the Adam Walsh Act.

Finally, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims as to the lack of educational and vocational programs. It’s not the law in this circuit that a Fifth Amendment violation necessarily exists if a civil detainee is subject to a condition similar to or less favorable than the analogous one applicable to prisoners. The record shows that Adam Walsh Act detainees have exclusive access to the commitment and treatment program, which is designed to treat their sexual dangerousness – the very reason they are civilly committed. The BOP offers various educational and vocational opportunities to prisoners and civil detainees, but also attempts to keep the two populations separate for safety reasons, though it acknowledges that incidental contact occurs. BOP offers detainee- or prisoner-led adult continuing education courses – plaintiff has completed 10.

Summary judgment for defendants is affirmed.