Jones v. Mora

Background

Amos Jones, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CTF officers Madsen and Mora. He alleged that Madsen directed Mora to sexually assault him during a clothed body search in retaliation for a grievance Jones had filed against Madsen. He asserted First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment sexual-assault claims.

Jones alleged that, on October 11, 2019, he filed a grievance after Madsen searched his cell and confiscated his MP3 player and CDs. On November 23, 2019, Madsen allegedly referred to the grievance, ordered Mora to search Jones, and said Jones was one of the inmates who had written her up. Jones stated that Mora then put his hands inside Jones’s pants and deliberately squeezed his testicles twice, causing pain. Jones further stated that Mora warned him the conduct would continue if he kept filing complaints against Madsen.

The defendants characterized the incident as a random pat-down search intended to detect weapons or contraband. They pointed to training materials that allowed a single groin sweep but expressly prohibited squeezing an inmate’s scrotum. Mora stated that he did not remember Jones or the search. The defendants also argued that the contact was brief and that Jones did not seek medical treatment for physical injuries.

Summary-Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must not decide which witnesses are credible or weigh competing evidence. When the evidence conflicts, it generally must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

For the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court stated that Jones had to show protected conduct, an adverse action, a connection between the conduct and the action, a chilling effect on his rights, and the absence of a legitimate correctional purpose. The court found that Jones’s grievance was protected conduct. It also found triable factual disputes about the other elements, based on the alleged references to the grievance, the claimed deviation from the search manual, Mora’s alleged warning, and the alleged sexual contact.

For the Eighth Amendment claim, the court explained that sexual conduct by a prison employee may violate the Constitution when it is sufficiently harmful and intended to harm, including when it is used to humiliate, degrade, or demean a prisoner without a legitimate correctional purpose. A lasting physical injury is not required. Viewing the evidence in Jones’s favor, the court found a factual dispute about whether Madsen directed Mora to touch Jones sexually under the guise of a pat-down search to retaliate against or intimidate him.

The defendants also sought qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The court said the qualified-immunity issue could not be resolved without deciding which version of the search was true. Under the defendants’ version, the search was routine and involved brief contact consistent with procedure; under Jones’s version, it involved retaliation and two deliberate squeezes. Because the court could not resolve that factual conflict on summary judgment, it denied summary judgment on qualified immunity.

The defendants separately sought summary judgment on punitive damages, arguing that the evidence did not show the required evil motive, reckless disregard, or callous indifference. The court denied that request because factual disputes remained about the purpose and details of the body search.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It also referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, to occur within 120 days of the order or as soon afterward as the magistrate judge’s schedule allowed. If the case does not settle, the court will enter a new scheduling order for further proceedings. The order’s title also states that the action is stayed while it is referred for settlement proceedings.