Title Elkin v. Fauver
Date 1992
By Alito
Subject Misc
Contents
Page 1
215 of 238 DOCUMENTS
MICHAEL J. ELKIN v. WILLIAM H. FAUVER, E. CALVIN NEUBERT, DONALD MEE, JR., Appellants
No. 91-5896
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
969 F.2d 48; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626
March 3, 1991, Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) July 13, 1992, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Petition for Rehearing
Denied August 7, 1992, Reported at 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS
18274.
PRIOR HISTORY: **1 ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. (D.C. Civil No. 91-
02092)
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, prison administrator, and hearing officer at the disciplinary hearing, sought review of the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The district court found defendants in civil contempt because the chain-of--custody form used in connection with the collection of plaintiff prisoner's urine sample did not comply with previous district court orders.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff prisoner was found guilty and sanctioned for a disciplinary infraction based on a drug test that indicated the presence of opiates in a sample of his urine. Plaintiff then filed a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action against defendants, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, prison administrator, and the hearing offi- cer who presided at his disciplinary proceeding. The dis- trict court found defendants in civil contempt, holding that the chain-of--custody form used by the prison in connec- tion with the collection and testing of plaintiff's sample did not comply with previous district court orders. The court reversed the district court's decision because defen- dants' failure to comply with the technical requirements of the prior orders had no effect on plaintiff. The court held that it was clear that the evidence in plaintiff's disci- plinary proceeding regarding the chain of custody of his urine sample amply satisfied constitutional requirements. The court held that not only was there "some evidence"
that the sample was plaintiff's, but the state's chain-of-- custody evidence fully satisfied the standards applicable in a court proceeding. Therefore, plaintiff was not harmed.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the district court's deci- sion that defendants, the Commissioner of New Jersey Department of Corrections, prison administrator, and hearing officer at the disciplinary hearing in civil con- tempt. The court held that the state's chain-of--custody evidence fully satisfied the standards applicable in a court proceeding and was utterly harmless to plaintiff.
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Evidence > Writings & Real Evidence > Authentication
Administrative Law > Agency Adjudication > Hearings
HN1 N.J. Admin. Code tit. 10A § 3-5.10(c)(2) states that after a urine sample is collected it must be placed in a refrigerator and the officer who receives custody of the urine sample shall make a written record of the date and time he received the sample, the officer from whom it was received, and the date and time of its placement into the evidence locker and/or locked refrigerator.
Evidence > Writings & Real Evidence > Authentication
Administrative Law > Agency Adjudication > Hearings
HN2 Constitutional requirements are met if there is
"some evidence" in the record of the disciplinary pro- ceeding showing that the sample belonged to the inmate charged with the disciplinary infraction. The due process requirements in this context are minimal.
Constitutional Law > Civil Rights Enforcement > Civil
Rights Act of 1871 > Coverage
HN3 An alleged violation of state law, however, does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
Civil Procedure > Entry of Judgments > Specific Acts
HN4 The framing of sanctions for civil contempt is com- mitted to the sound discretion of the trial court. But this discretion is not unlimited. Compensatory sanctions must
969 F.2d 48, *; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626, **1
Page 2
not exceed the actual loss suffered by the party that was wronged. Moreover, civil contempt sanctions should be tailored so that they do not unduly harm broader public interests.
Civil Procedure > Entry of Judgments > Specific Acts
HN5 Sanctions for civil contempt may be coercive or compensatory.
Administrative Law > Agency Adjudication
HN6 In the absence of a recent pattern of violations, it is entirely inappropriate to overturn the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceeding because of a procedural error without making the normal appellate assessment as to whether the error was harmless or prejudicial. If a person may be convicted and obliged to serve a substan- tial prison sentence notwithstanding a constitutional error determined to be harmless, surely the conditions of con- finement of a sentenced prisoner may be made temporar- ily more severe as discipline for a prison rules infraction despite a harmless error in adjudicating the violation. Civil Procedure > Entry of Judgments > Specific Acts
HN7 A compensatory civil contempt fine must be based on the actual loss suffered by the party that has been wronged.
Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Mootness
HN8 Payment of a judgment does not moot an appeal contesting the judgment.
COUNSEL: ROBERT J. DEL TUFO, Attorney General of New Jersey, R. J. Hughes Justice Complex, CN 112, Trenton, New Jersey 08625, JOSEPH L. YANNOTTI, Assistant Attorney General Of Counsel, BRETT D. RICKMAN, Deputy Attorney General On the Brief, Attorneys for Appellants.
MICHAEL J. ELKIN 54914, Bayside State Prison, P. O. Box F-2, Leesburg, New Jersey 08327, Appellant Pro Se.
JUDGES: Before: BECKER, ALITO, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
OPINIONBY: ALITO
OPINION: *49
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALITO, Circuit Judge:
Michael J. Elkin, a prisoner at New Jersey's Bayside State Prison, was found guilty and sanctioned for a disci- plinary infraction based on a drug test that indicated the presence of opiates in a sample of his urine. Elkin then filed this action in federal *50 court under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the Prison Administrator, and the hearing officer who presided at his disciplinary pro- ceeding. The district court found the defendants in civil contempt, holding that the chain-of--custody form used by the prison in connection with the collection and test- ing of Elkin's sample **2 did not comply with previous district court orders. The court ordered that all sanctions against Elkin be vacated and that the Commissioner pay Elkin a compensatory fine. Because it is apparent that the defendants' failure to comply with the technical re- quirements of the prior orders had no effect on Elkin, we reverse.
I.
A. In order to understand the present case it is neces- sary to examine several previous cases in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning procedures for ensuring the accuracy of drug tests admin- istered to state prisoners. In 1984, in Denike v. Fauver, Civ. Action No. 83-2737 (D.N.J. filed May 14, 1984), a class of inmate plaintiffs and New Jersey officials entered into a consent decree specifying detailed drug testing pro- cedures; these procedures are now embodied in state reg- ulations, N.J. Admin. Code tit. 10A § 3-5.9 to 5.11. For present purposes, only one provision of the consent de- cree is significant. HN1 This provision states that after a urine sample is collected it must be placed in a refrig- erator and the officer who receives custody of the urine sample shall make a written record of the date and time he received the sample, **3 the officer from whom it was received, and the date and time of its placement into the evidence locker and/or locked refrigerator.
App. at 159. See also N.J. Admin. Code tit. 10A § 3-
5.10(c)(2).
After the Denike consent decree, prisoners who failed drug tests began filing section 1983 suits claiming that the procedures set out in the decree had not been followed. In one such case, Duffy v. Fauver, Civ. Action No. 90-
1450 (D.N.J. filed Sept. 24, 1990), the district court held that the chain-of--custody form used by the Department of Corrections (Form 172-I -- "Continuity of Evidence -- Urine Specimen Form") did not comply with the above quoted provision of the decree. This form, the same one used in the present case, contains spaces for recording the names of (a) the corrections officer who witnesses the voiding, (b) the officer who places the sample in the
"satellite" refrigerator (i.e., the refrigerator near the prison unit where the sample was voided), (c) the officer who re- moves the sample from the satellite refrigerator, (d) the officer who places the sample in the main prison evidence refrigerator, (e) the officer who removes the sample from
969 F.2d 48, *50; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626, **3
Page 3
that refrigerator, (f) **4 the officer who transports the sample to the department laboratory, (g) the officer who receives the sample at the department laboratory, (h) the officer who transports the sample from the department laboratory to a private laboratory for confirmatory testing, and (i) the person who receives the sample at the private laboratory. The district court faulted this form, however, because it lacks spaces for the names of the officers who transport a sample from the place of voiding to the satel- lite refrigerator and from the satellite refrigerator to the main refrigerator. Thus, if officer A collects a sample, officer B takes the sample from A and carries it to the satellite refrigerator, and officer C takes the sample from B and places it in the refrigerator, officer B would have no place on the form to sign his name. The court therefore entered an order in late September 1990 requiring the de- fendants in that case to revise the form "to add a space for identification of the officer from whom a urine sample is received when it is placed in the evidence refrigerator." Duffy at 12.
The Department of Corrections prepared such a re- vised form by December 1990 but, as the district court explained, **5 this matter "was lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and the form was not ultimately revised until early summer 1991." Elkin v. Fauver, Civ. Action No. 91-2092
(D.N.J. filed Sept. 27, 1991) at 7. In the meantime, the events giving rise to the present case took place. *51
B. On March 12, 1991, a syringe was found in a com- mon area of cottage 3 at Bayside State Prison. As a result, Elkin and the other prisoners assigned to that cottage were ordered to provide urine samples for drug testing. All of the significant events that followed were recorded on a copy of Form 172-I. In addition, these events were confirmed by testimony at trial before the district court.
At 7:23 p.m. on March 14, Officer Murray witnessed Elkin's voiding of the sample. Officer Murray and Elkin both signed spaces on the form indicating that Murray had closed, sealed, and labeled the jar in Elkin's presence. Officer Murray then put the jar in a plastic bag and heat sealed the jar. At 7:30 p.m., Officer Murray placed the sample in the satellite refrigerator.
After completing the process of collecting samples from the other inmates in the cottage, Officer Murray removed the sealed bag containing Elkin's sample from the **6 satellite refrigerator. He then took the sample to the main evidence refrigerator and placed it in that refrigerator at 10:25 p.m.
On March 20 at 7:40 a.m., the sample was removed from the refrigerator by another corrections official, and at 8:50 a.m. the sample was taken to the Department lab- oratory, where it arrived at 12:00 p.m. Tests performed
at the Department laboratory yielded positive results. On April 3, the sample was removed from the Department laboratory at 5:40 p.m. and taken to a private laboratory for additional testing. These tests confirmed the presence of opiates.
Elkin was then charged with a disciplinary infrac- tion, using illegal narcotics in prison, in violation of N.J. Admin. Code tit. 10A § 4-4.1 (a)(.204). After a proceed- ing before Hearing Officer Donald Mee, Jr., Elkin was found guilty. As a sanction, he was given a period of ad- ministrative segregation, and he lost commutation credits. He then filed this action. By this time, the state had begun to use the new chain-of--custody form required in Duffy. Nevertheless, the court, after a bench trial, held the defendants in civil contempt for failing to use such a form with respect to Elkin's sample. The court **7 re- jected the defendants' harmless error argument, although the court did not dispute that the chain of custody for Elkin's sample was unbroken and that the only effect of complete compliance with Duffy in this case would have been that Officer Murray "would have signed his name in another space." Elkin at 5. The court reasoned that "if the information was unimportant, this court would not have ordered that space be provided for it to be recorded." Id. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the delay in complying with the Duffy order did not justify
contempt sanctions.
The court concluded that the state had "failed to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable diligence" in complying with the Duffy order. Id. at 7. The court there- fore ordered that all of Elkin's sanctions be vacated and that the infraction be expunged from his records. In ad- dition, the court fined Commissioner Fauver $825 in his official capacity and ordered that the fine be paid to Elkin as compensation for time spent in disciplinary detention and administrative segregation. The defendants appealed.
II.
A. Elkin's complaint attempted to state a claim un- der 41 U.S.C. § 1983 and **8 alleged that the de- fendants had violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Under our decision in Thompson v. Owens, 889 F.2d 500 (3d Cir. 1989), how- ever, it is clear that the evidence in Elkin's disciplinary proceeding regarding the chain of custody of his urine sample amply satisfied constitutional requirements. In Thompson, we held that HN2 these requirements are met if there is "some evidence" in the record of the dis- ciplinary proceeding showing that the sample belonged to the inmate charged with the disciplinary infraction. Id. at 502. We wrote that the "due process requirements in this context are minimal." Id. at 501. In the present case,
969 F.2d 48, *51; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626, **8
Page 4
not only was there "some evidence" that the sample was Elkin's, but the state's chain-of--custody evidence *52 fully satisfied the standards applicable in a court proceed- ing. See Fed. R. Evid. 901; United States v. Hon, 904 F.2d
803, 809-10 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied , U.S. , 111
S.Ct. 789 (1991); United States v. Ladd, 885 F.2d 954,
956-57 (1st Cir. 1989). Thus, it is clear that **9 there was no constitutional violation.
Elkin argues that the state did not comply with its own regulations regarding documentation of the chain of custody. HN3 An alleged violation of state law, how- ever, does not state a claim under section 1983. See, e.g., Kasper v. Board of Election Comm'rs, 814 F.2d 332, 342
(7th Cir. 1987).
B. The district court did not base its decision on a vio- lation of the Constitution or any other provision of federal law, but on violations of the orders entered in Denike and Duffy. The court held that these violations constituted civil contempt and imposed sanctions. Even if we assume that Elkin could assert rights under the orders entered in Denike and Duffy and that the adjudication of civil con- tempt was proper, n1 we are nevertheless convinced that the sanctions imposed by the district court may not be sustained.
n1 The defendants have not challenged Elkin's standing to assert rights under the Denike and Duffy orders, but we have an independent obligation to ensure that federal jurisdiction is present in cases that come before us. See, e.g., Bolden v. SEPTA,
953 F.2d 807, 812 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied , U.S. , 60 U.S.L.W. 3798 (1992). It is apparent that Elkin possessed Article III standing because the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon him con- stituted injury in fact. See Whitmore v. Arkansas,
495 U.S. 149, 156-61 (1990). Whether Elkin met prudential standing requirements, i.e., whether he could assert rights under the Denike and Duffy or- ders, is less clear. See, e.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 472-75 (1982); Amato v. Wilentz, 952 F.2d 742, 748-50 (3d Cir.
1991). See also Lasky v. Quinlan, 558 F.2d 1133 (2d
Cir. 1977); Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed.,
537 F.2d 1031, 1032 (9th Cir. 1976). While Elkin was a member of the class certified in Denike, he was not a party in Duffy, the case in which the court set out the specific requirement that was violated here. In any event, we do not think that we need to address this prudential standing question. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 237 (1990)
(rejecting constitutional claim on the merits without reaching prudential standing issue); Craig v. Boren,
429 U.S. 190, 193-94 (1976) (prudential standing not jurisdictional). See also Norton v. Mathews, 427
U.S. 524, 530-31 (1976) (in appropriate case, ju- risdictional issue need not be decided where case can be alternatively decided on merits in favor of the same party). United States v. Weathersby, 958
F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1992); Wolder v. United States,
807 F.2d 1506, 1507 (9th Cir. 1987).
**10 HN4
The framing of sanctions for civil contempt is com- mitted to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S.
258, 303 (1947); Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857,
871 (3d Cir. 1990). But this discretion is not unlimited. Compensatory sanctions, such as those imposed by the district court in this case, n2 must not exceed the actual loss suffered by the party that was wronged. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 303-04; McDonald's Corp. v. Victory Invs., 727 F.2d 82, 87 (3d Cir. 1984). Moreover, as the Supreme Court recognized in Spallone v. United States,
493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990), civil contempt sanctions should be tailored so that they do not unduly harm broader public interests. Thus, in the present case, the strong public inter- est in the enforcement of prison disciplinary rules -- rules that play a vital role in maintaining institutional safety and order n3 -- must be carefully considered.
n2 HN5 Sanctions for civil contempt may be coercive or compensatory. Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421, 443 (1986); McDonald's Corporation v. Victory Invs., 727 F.2d 82, 87 (3d Cir. 1984); Quinter v. Volkswagen of America, 676
F.2d 969, 975 (3d Cir. 1982). Here, the state was in full compliance with the Duffy order prior to the imposition of sanctions, and it is apparent that the sanctions were intended to be compensatory.
**11
n3 See, e.g., Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 454-55 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 562-63 (1974). See also Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S.
460, 473 (1983); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 132 (1977).
*53
Applying these standards, we hold that the first sanc- tions selected by the district court in this case -- vacating all of the punishment imposed on Elkin for illegal drug use in prison and expungement of his record -- are not
969 F.2d 48, *53; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626, **11
Page 5
consistent with the sound exercise of discretion. We agree with the Second Circuit which recently considered a vir- tually identical issue. In Powell v. Coughlin, 953 F.2d 744
(2d Cir. 1991), the district court had found that the hear- ing officer at a prison disciplinary proceeding had violated a prior court order establishing procedural requirements for such proceedings. As a sanction, the district court had overturned the disciplinary adjudication and had ordered expungement **12 of the prisoner's record without in- quiring whether the violation had had any effect upon the outcome of the proceeding. In reversing the district court, the Second Circuit wrote:
The District Court has been proceeding on the assumption that the appropriate remedy for every instance of procedural irregularity in the conduct of a disciplinary hearing is a reversal of the outcome and expungement of the adverse findings. The concept of harm- less error is entirely absent from the review process conducted by the District Court. We think this approach fundamentally miscon- ceives the appropriate role of a court in main- taining compliance with constitutional stan- dards in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings.
Id. at 750. The court concluded:
HN6
In the absence of a recent pattern of viola- tions, it is entirely inappropriate to overturn the outcome of a prison disciplinary proceed- ing because of a procedural error without making the normal appellate assessment as to whether the error was harmless or prej- udicial. If a person may be convicted and obliged to serve a substantial prison sentence notwithstanding a constitutional error deter- mined to be harmless, see **13 Arizona v. Fulminante, U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113
L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); Chapman v. California,
386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705
(1967), surely the conditions of confinement of a sentenced prisoner may be made tem- porarily more severe as discipline for a prison rules infraction despite a harmless error in adjudicating the violation.
Id.
We agree with this analysis, and we believe that it requires the reversal of the portions of the district court order vacating Elkin's disciplinary sanctions and requiring the expungement of his record. The use of the 172-I form
in this case was utterly harmless. The form contained a complete record of the chain of custody of Elkin's sample from the moment of voiding through the second confirma- tory test at the private laboratory, and there is no evidence that the sample tested was not Elkin's or that the sample was altered. Had the form required in Duffy been in use at the time, Elkin's disciplinary proceeding would not have been affected in the slightest. Elkin was thus properly found to have committed the disciplinary violation with which he was **14 charged -- a serious violation with important implications for the maintenance of order and security in the institution. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 527 (1984) (drug use is "one of the most perplex- ing problems of prisons today"). Therefore, since Elkin suffered no harm and since the overturning of his disci- plinary adjudication and expunging of his record tend to undermine the public interest in the proper enforcement of prison disciplinary rules, we hold that those sanctions are not justified.
We reach the same result with respect to the $825 fine that Commissioner Fauver was ordered to pay in his official capacity. n4 Commissioner Fauver was or- dered *54 to pay this fine to Elkin to compensate him for time spent in disciplinary detention and administra- tive segregation as a result of the disciplinary charge and adjudication. Accordingly, this compensation was pred- icated on the district court's conclusion that Elkin had been improperly adjudicated to have committed the dis- ciplinary violation. Because we hold that the disciplinary adjudication should not have been overturned, we see no basis for compensating Elkin. As previously noted,
HN7 a compensatory civil contempt **15 fine must be based on the actual loss suffered by the party that has been wronged. United States v. United Mine Workers,
330 U.S. at 303-04; McDonald's Corp. v Victory Invs.,
727 F.2d at 87. Here, Elkin suffered no wrongful loss and is consequently entitled to no compensation.
n4 Elkin seems to suggest that the state's chal- lenge to this portion of the district order is moot because the fine has been paid. However, HN8 payment of a judgment does not moot an appeal contesting the judgment. See, e.g., Cohill v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 351 U.S. 183, 184 (1956); Porter v. Lee, 328 U.S. 246, 251 (1946).
We do not condone the state's tardiness in comply- ing with the order in Duffy, which the state chose not to appeal. Nevertheless, we hold that the compensatory sanctions imposed by the district court cannot be sus- tained.
The judgment of the district **16 court is therefore reversed.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
