Fourth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Guards Who Left North Carolina Prisoner to Eat with Feces-Soiled Hands
On January 3, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s grant of qualified immunity (QI) to guards who left North Carolina prisoner Jordan Andrew Jones to eat with feces-soiled hands. However, the Court said that his transfer after he filed complaints about the treatment may have been retaliatory, and it remanded that claim.
Jones filed suit pro se in federal court for the Western District of North Carolina over incidents that occurred at Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution in 2015. After a guard saw Jones put something in his mouth—which the prisoner said was a piece of candy—he was placed in a dry cell, its water turned off. This was allegedly designed to prevent him from flushing evidence of contraband before it could be found in his feces. To facilitate this inspection, he was required to have three bowel movements using a portable toilet.
Following his third bowel movement Jones was required to search through his own feces using tongue depressors. No contraband was found. Jones was provided toilet paper but nothing to clean his hands with after defecating. Nor was he given eating utensils, so when served a meal he had to eat using his dirty, feces-soiled hands. In all, his complaint recalled, he was without running water for around 17 hours, wore “soiled clothing” for 23 hours, and was denied a shower, soap and cleaning supplies for about 30 hours.
Defendants conceded that this was “unsanitary, ‘disgusting,’ and a ‘clear violation of policy,’” and the Fourth Circuit added that it was “gross, degrading, and deeply concerning.” Yet the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Defendants on Jones’ Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, finding that guards were entitled to QI because “[i]t was not clearly established in April 2015 that giving a prisoner a single meal without utensils after they had defecated once and had access to toilet paper, but not soap or water, would violate the Eighth Amendment.”
Following his release from the dry cell, Jones filed several grievances, which resulted in disciplinary action recommended against two guards. Multiple prison officials indicated that he would be transferred due to his complaints, and Assistant Superintendent Gregory P. Taylor told him to “ease up” if he wanted to stay at Avery-Mitchell. Two days later, Taylor had Jones transferred to Lanesboro Correctional Institution, which was “widely known to be a dangerous facility,” the prisoner’s complaint said; in fact, another prisoner who had previously assaulted Jones was housed there. He was returned to Avery Mitchell less than two weeks later. Casting further doubt on Defendants’ motives, their explanation for why he had been transferred changed over time.
In this the Court of Appeals held that Jones had sufficiently stated a First Amendment retaliation claim, satisfying the three-part standard for such claims set forth in Martin v. Duffy, 977 F.3d 294, 299 (4th Cir. 2020). The Court said it had “little difficulty” in concluding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the reason for Jones’ transfer to Lanesboro, which precluded granting Defendants QI and summary judgment. As the transfer plausibly constituted an adverse action for retaliation purposes, the case was remanded to allow that claim to proceed against Taylor.
Circuit Judge King issued a separate opinion that “Jones was forced to eat and sleep [in the dry cell] in an alarmingly soiled state. Forcing a human being to eat his food using hands dirtied by fecal matter is well beyond contemporary standards of decency, and carries with it a substantial risk to personal health.” Still, he concurred with the majority opinion—that the guards could not be held to those standards unless first spelled out for them in minute specificity.
Back at the district court, a magistrate refereed a settlement conference on April 4, 2024, but no agreement was reached. The case remains pending, and PLN will update developments as they are available. Jones is once again proceeding pro se, after being represented on appeal by attorney Harry S. Graver with the Washington, D.C. firm of Jones Day. See: Jones v. Solomon, 90 F.4th 198 (4th Cir. 2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login