Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Prison officials at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute are asking a federal court to dismiss a complaint alleging the prison violated the civil rights of death row inmates by holding them in isolated conditions.
The case — Jurijus Kadamovas, on his behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, in her official capacity, et al., 2:23-cv-22 — was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in January by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
The lead plaintiff, Jurijus Kadamovas, has been in the Special Confinement Unit at the Terre Haute facility since 2007, when he was sentenced to death for kidnapping and murder.
Terre Haute is the only prison in the U.S. that holds men for death row. According to the complaint, there are currently about 38 prisoners on death row.
The lawsuit claims the individuals on death row are in isolated conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
But Warden Steven Kallis and former warden Thomas Watson, in their individual capacities, on Friday moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. A similar motion was filed last month by the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other defendants sued in their official capacities.
The wardens’ first argument is that the court should not create a new Eighth Amendment Bivens remedy.
“Plaintiff’s purported Eighth Amendment Bivens claim against Mr. Kallis and Mr. Watson should be dismissed with prejudice, because the Court cannot recognize the proposed claim,” the motion argues. “Decades ago, the Supreme Court held for the first time in Bivens ‘that district courts have the implied authority to award damages against federal officials for’ unconstitutional conduct.”
They argue that the plaintiff’s proposed claim presents a new context.
“Simply put, the Complaint on its face describes a situation and challenges conduct different from those in Carlson, and this makes the case a ‘new context,’” the motion continues, citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
They further claim that multiple special factors foreclose authorizing a Bivens remedy in the case.
“Because ‘the Government already has provided alternative remedies’ allowing inmates like plaintiff to challenge allegedly unconstitutional conduct by prison staff, the Court should not authorize plaintiff’s proposed Bivens claim,” the motion says.
The second argument the wardens make is that qualified immunity bars the plaintiff’s purported Bivens claim.
“The Complaint fails to plausibly plead either component of the Eighth Amendment claim, and this requires dismissal for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds,” the motion says.
Further, the wardens argue the plaintiff doesn’t plausibly plead that either Kallis or Watson violated any clearly established Eighth Amendment right.
“Furthermore, there is no Supreme Court, Seventh Circuit, or other relevant caselaw, to our knowledge, clearly establishing that housing plaintiff in the SCU under the conditions the Complaint describes violates the Eighth Amendment,” they argue in the motion. “As stated above, the Supreme Court has recently commented on alleged ‘solitary confinement’ conditions considerably more restrictive than plaintiff’s and found no Eighth Amendment violation” — specifically, Buntion v. Lumpkin, 142 S.Ct. 3 (2021).
Indiana Lawyer has reached out to counsel involved in the litigation for comment.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.