Harrington v. Scribner, No. 09-16951 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter a lockdown was imposed on African American inmates at a California state prison, plaintiff filed suit against prison officials under the Eighth Amendment for injuries he suffered related to shower restrictions and under the Equal Protection Clause for the race-based classification of the lockdown. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, the court considered the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. California, which held that strict scrutiny applies to claims challenging racial classifications in prison, and the line of authorities, such as Turner v. Safley, that instruct courts to give deference to correctional officials with respect to constitutional claims involving prison regulations. The court affirmed as to the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim where the district court correctly stated the knowledge requirement outlined in Farmer v. Brennan. The court affirmed as to the district court's decision not to appoint counsel because there was no abuse of discretion. The court reversed, vacated, and remanded as to plaintiff's equal protection claim where the district court erred when it instructed the jury that the prison's obligations under the Eighth Amendment compete with its obligations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A prisoner's success on an equal protection claims is not dependent on whether the government met its obligations under the Eighth Amendment. In light of Johnson's clear direction, the district court also erred by allowing the jury to defer generally to officials when considering plaintiff's equal protection claim, rather than assessing whether the challenged race-based actions were narrowly tailored. Finally, the error was prejudicial.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, entered following a jury trial, in an action arising from a lockdown imposed on African American inmates at a California state prison. Plaintiff, a Californian state prisoner, brought claims under the Eighth Amendment for injuries he suffered related to shower restrictions and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the race-based classification of the lockdown. Affirming with respect to the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to inmate safety claim, the panel held that the district court’s jury instruction on that claim essentially correctly restated the elements of the test outlined in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), by requiring knowledge of a “substantial risk of serious harm” and that a defendant “disregarded that risk.” The panel held that plaintiff was not entitled to urge liability based on defendants’ constructive knowledge of the risk. Reversing with respect to the equal protection claim, the panel held that the district court’s jury instructions were inconsistent with the requirements of strict scrutiny. The panel held that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that a prison’s obligations under the Eighth Amendment HARRINGTON V. SCRIBNER 3 compete with its obligations under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That error, which absolved the prison officials of their obligation to demonstrate that the race-based action was narrowly tailored, violated the tenets of Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005), and was prejudicial. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff appointed counsel. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge O’Scannlain concurred in the panel’s analysis of plaintiff’s deliberate indifference and appointment of counsel claims and joined in the opinion and judgment to that extent. Judge O’Scannlain dissented from the panel’s equal protection analysis and concluded that the relevant jury instruction appropriately incorporated deference to prison officials’ unique expertise.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.