Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 2399
`
`
`CHARLES DAWSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`RICHARD BROWN,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`RANDALL PURCELL,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH
`
`Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a
`Matter of Law and Denying Motion for a New Trial
`
`Plaintiff Charles Dawson, an Indiana prisoner, filed this civil rights action alleging that he
`
`was confined on Department Wide Administrative Segregation for an extended period of time
`
`without due process and that the conditions of that confinement violated his Eighth Amendment
`
`rights. Dkt. 61 at 1. A trial was held, and the jury found defendants Charles Dugan, Jerry Snyder,
`
`and Dick Brown liable to Mr. Dawson. These defendants now seek judgment as a matter of law in
`
`their favor pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for
`
`a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a). Defendants argue that Mr. Dawson failed to establish all of the
`
`elements of his claims and that the jury was improperly instructed regarding supervisory liability.
`
`Mr. Dawson responded, and Defendants replied.
`
`For the reasons explained below, the motion for judgment as a matter of law, dkt. [169], is
`
`granted in part and denied in part, and the alternative motion for new trial, dkt [169], is denied.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 2400
`
`I. Background
`
`Mr. Dawson's claims arise out of the 16-month period he spent in Department Wide
`
`Administrative Segregation ("DWAS"), a restrictive housing unit at Wabash Valley Correctional
`
`Facility, from October 30, 2018, until his transfer to another prison sometime in March 2020.
`
`A. Verdict
`
`A three-day trial was held, and the jury found as follows:
`
`On Mr. Dawson's Eighth Amendment conditions claim, the jury found for Mr. Dawson in
`
`the amount of $1 and found punitive damages against Mr. Dugan, $5,000; and Mr. Snyder,
`
`$20,000.
`
`On Mr. Dawson's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, the jury found for
`
`Mr. Dawson and awarded him $30,000 in compensatory damages and awarded punitive damages
`
`against Mr. Dugan, $10,000; Mr. Brown, $40,000; and Mr. Snyder, $45,000.
`
`The jury found for Mr. Purcell on both claims and for Mr. Brown on the conditions claim.
`
`B. Evidence Adduced at Trial
`
`The evidence presented at trial taken in the light most favorable to Mr. Dawson includes
`
`the following:
`
`1. Disciplinary Segregation
`
`When a prisoner is found guilty of conduct that violates a prison rule at a disciplinary
`
`hearing, he may be sanctioned with time in disciplinary segregation. Dkt. 175 at 92. Disciplinary
`
`segregation cells are single-man concrete cells with solid doors in a separate wing of the prison.
`
`Id. at 93 and 163. Prisoners in disciplinary segregation are generally in their cell for 23 hours a
`
`day. Id. at 94. There are no windows, and a light is on at all times. Id. at 94-95. Prisoners are
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 2401
`
`permitted to spend one hour a day outside alone in a caged-in area where they can talk to other
`
`prisoners through the fence. Id. at 96.
`
`2. Department Wide Administrative Segregation (DWAS)
`
`Prisoners are placed in DWAS at the discretion of the internal affairs office and the
`
`Warden. Dkt. 175 at 98. Unlike disciplinary segregation, there is no set out date. Id. at 99. The cells
`
`are nearly identical to those in the disciplinary segregation wing. There are three concrete walls
`
`and a perforated cell door that faces out towards a wall. Dkt. 178 at 158. Disciplinary segregation
`
`cells had a non-perforated solid slab door. Id. at 169. The cell contains a bed, desk, and toilet. Id.
`
`Mr. Dawson's cell did not have a chair. Dkt. 178 at 158. There are no visible windows, and
`
`prisoners are generally confined to their cell for 23 hours a day. Dkt. 175 at 99. A low wattage
`
`nightlight is in each cell so that correctional officers can regularly inspect the cells. Dkt. 178 at
`
`159. This same light is present in general population cells. Id. at 140-141. Mr. Dawson testified
`
`that the light made him feel restless, grumpy, and not well. Id. at 193.
`
`Mr. Dawson has a rod in his leg which causes leg pain and makes sitting on hard surfaces
`
`difficult. Dkt. 178 at 170. Even while in DWAS, Mr. Dawson was able to sit comfortably on his
`
`bed and had access to pain medications to reduce his leg pain. Id. at 171.
`
`Prisoners in DWAS are permitted an hour outside their cell alone in a small caged-in area
`
`with a basketball goal and ball. Dkt. 175 at 100, 160. This one hour of recreation was the only time
`
`Mr. Dawson saw outside. Id. at 162. Birds nested in the fencing surrounding the recreation cages,
`
`so bird feces were all over the recreation yard. Id. at 164. Indoor recreation was time alone in a
`
`room with a pull-up bar and basketball goal. Id. at 161. The roof of the indoor recreation area was
`
`half covered in stained plexiglass and the other half was open to the sky. Id. at 195.
`
`Mr. Dawson was permitted to leave his cell to shower three times a week. Dkt. 178 at 160.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 2402
`
`Prisoners on DWAS can yell to communicate with each other, but they cannot see each
`
`other face to face. Dkt. 178 at 163.
`
`Like disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation limits phone calls to one call for
`
`15 minutes each week. Dkt. 178 at 162-163. In person visits were limited to 45 minutes without
`
`contact. Id. at 163, 178. Materials could be requested from the law library, but prisoners in DWAS
`
`could not go to the library. Id.
`
`Food could be ordered from commissary and cooked with a hot pot, but no microwave was
`
`available. Dkt. 178 at 168.
`
`Mr. Dawson testified that cold air would enter his range through an exterior door, and he
`
`would put on his thermals, sweat suit, and uniform to stay warm. Dkt. 178 at 188. The cold
`
`bothered the metal in his leg, causing pain. Id. at 193. In the summer, the air conditioner was not
`
`working on Mr. Dawson's range, so officers opened the door at the end of the range for fresh air
`
`and a fan was permitted. Id. at 188. Field mice were able to enter the range. Id.
`
`General population allows for more freedom and socialization. Many prisoners share a cell.
`
`Dkt. 178 at 169. Meals can be eaten in the chow hall, there is recreation with weights, video games,
`
`basketball, and billiards. Prisoners can socialize with other prisoners and can cook food in the
`
`microwave. Jobs and other programming are available. Id. at 167.
`
`Mr. Dawson testified that not being able to move about the prison and attend visitation
`
`with his family and girlfriend was "depressing over time" and he often felt lonely. Dkt. 178 at 218.
`
`He found his time alone to be a "difficult situation to deal with. . . ." Id.
`
`Mr. Dawson further testified that he told Mr. Dugan that he did not like where he was at.
`
`Dkt. 178 at 219.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 2403
`
`3. Mr. Dawson's Placement in DWAS
`
`Mr. Dawson was held in a solitary cell from the time he arrived at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility until his transfer. On October 26, 2018, Mr. Dawson was completing a one-
`
`year term of disciplinary segregation as a result of a trafficking violation. Dkt. 178 at 84-85. At that
`
`time, Mr. Snyder sent an email stating that Mr. Dawson was being processed for placement on
`
`DWAS. Exhibit 3-A.
`
`On November 1, 2018, Warden Richard Brown reviewed and signed off on a memorandum
`
`sent to Michael Osborn, the Southern Regional Director, recommending that Mr. Dawson be
`
`placed in DWAS. Exhibit 8; dkt. 178 at 139. The recommendation was based on Mr. Dawson's
`
`involvement in a trafficking ring and thirteen conduct violations. Id. That same day, Mr. Dawson
`
`was transferred to administrative segregation. Dkt. 175 at 102-104. He was given a Report of
`
`Classification Hearing form which did not provide any information about his right to appeal.
`
`Exhibit 1-A; dkt. 178 at 84. The form did not explain why Mr. Dawson was being transferred to
`
`DWAS or how long he would be there. Id. at 85.
`
`4. Report of Classification Hearing
`
`Indiana Department of Corrections ("IDOC") policy provides that a series of classification
`
`reviews must be completed to maintain someone in DWAS. Dkt. 175 at 104. Specifically,
`
`prisoners are entitled to a review every week during the first two months of their placement in
`
`DWAS. Id. at 105. Mr. Dugan was responsible for completing these weekly reviews for
`
`Mr. Dawson during his first 60 days in DWAS. The weekly reviews included the completion of a
`
`"Report of Classification Hearing" form. See Exhibits 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-G, 1-H. When
`
`completing these forms, Mr. Dugan did not recommend that Mr. Dawson be reviewed for release.
`
`Id. at 109, 114. Mr. Dugan did not complete the section of the form titled "recommendation and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 2404
`
`basis." Exhibits 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-G, 1-H. Nor do these forms provide any information as to
`
`why Mr. Dawson should remain on DWAS. Id.
`
`Mr. Dugan explained that he did not have the authority to Order Mr. Dawson's release from
`
`DWAS, but that his weekly reviews could be an opportunity to start the process to be reviewed for
`
`release from DWAS. Dkt. 175 at 100. Mr. Dugan testified that Mr. Dawson could have asked to
`
`be reviewed for release, but there is no information on the form that explains that fact. Id. at 114.
`
`5. 30-Day Reviews – October 2018 through January 2019
`
`Beginning in October 2018, Mr. Dugan began producing what are known as 30-day
`
`reviews for Mr. Dawson. Dkt. 175 at 118. The purpose of the 30-day review is to determine whether
`
`a reason for segregation still exists for an inmate. Id. at 101-102. Every prisoner in administrative
`
`segregation was entitled to a 30-day review. Id. at 102.
`
`Mr. Dugan completed the 30-day reviews for October, November, December, and January,
`
`in less than a minute by simply updating the date on a prepared computer form. Id. at 120; see
`
`Exhibit 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D. No information was actually reviewed in completing these forms. Id.
`
`Mr. Dugan was taught to complete these forms in this manner by Mr. Snyder. Dkt. 175 at 142-143.
`
`These reviews would not result in Mr. Dawson's release from DWAS. Dkt. 175 at 121 and 127.
`
`Nowhere on the forms does it state that Mr. Dawson could appeal the decision. Id. These reviews
`
`did not indicate what Mr. Dawson should be doing to get off of DWAS. Id. at 128.
`
`6. ACT Program
`
`On December 18, 2018, Mr. Dugan completed another Report of Classification Hearing
`
`form. Exhibit 1-F. Again, he did not provide any reason for his recommendation that Mr. Dawson
`
`remain in administrative segregation. He did, however, refer Mr. Dawson for participation in the
`
`ACT program. Id.; dkt. 175 at 115. The ACT program is a nine-month program for prisoners in
`
`DWAS. There are multiple parts to the program, some of which cannot be completed while in
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 2405
`
`DWAS at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Id. at 115-116. The ACT program in DWAS
`
`consists of two volunteers talking simultaneously to 12 inmates who are locked in 12 different
`
`cells on two different floors once a week. Dkt. 178 at 77-78.
`
`7. 30-Day Reviews – February 2019 through May 2019
`
`Beginning in February 2019, and continuing through May 2019, the 30-day review forms
`
`were identical but added a paragraph that stated:
`
`Placement on Department-Wide Administrative Status Housing may be appealed
`by submitting a Classification Appeal (SF 9260) within ten working days of
`admission to a Department-Wide Restrict Status Housing Unit or any subsequent
`Classification action (i.e., 30 Day or 90 Day reviews).
`
`
`Exhibits 2-E, 2-F, 2-G, and 2-H. In completing these reviews Mr. Dugan also reportedly reviewed:
`
`"reason for current placement, conduct history, Program participation, OCMS notes, interactions
`
`with staff and other offenders." Id.; dkt. 175 at 129-130. None of these reviews reflected that
`
`Mr. Dugan recommended that Mr. Dawson's be reviewed for release from administrative
`
`segregation. Dkt. 175 at 131. These reviews took ten to fifteen minutes to complete. Id. at 171.
`
`8. Full 90-Day Reviews
`
`A full review (also referred to as a 90-day review) was the only process which could result
`
`in transfer out of DWAS. Dkt. 175 at 174. The full 90-day reviews do not happen automatically
`
`every 90 days and an inmate must wait at least 90 days after receiving the results of a full review
`
`before requesting another full review. Dkt. 178 at 54 and 176. It can take months for prison staff
`
`to complete a full review. Id. at 170. Mr. Dawson was never told how to apply for a full review,
`
`and he was never asked if he wanted a full review. Id. at 174-175. If a full review occurs, the
`
`prisoner is notified of the results when a decision has been made. Dkt. 178 at 55.
`
`
`
`On March 14, 2019, Mr. Dawson submitted a Classification Appeal through the
`
`institutional mail. In the appeal, he reported that he had been on DWAS since October 30, 2018,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 2406
`
`but had not received a 30-day or 90-day review to see if his state of mind had changed so that he
`
`could be placed back in general population. He also stated that he was not a threat to the safety or
`
`security of the facility and was requesting immediate release back to general population. Exhibit
`
`5; dkt. 178 at 131. No full review was ever completed as a result of this Classification appeal.
`
`
`
`Mr. Dawson filed this lawsuit on May 7, 2019, and service was issued to the defendants on
`
`June 18, 2019.
`
`On June 25, 2019, Mr. Snyder sent an email to Mr. Purcell asking him to "[p]lease do a
`
`staff initiated full review on [] Dawson #162406. When you make the OCMS note and on the
`
`review itself, please note that it is staff initiated. Thank you." Exhibit 3-E; Dkt. 178 at p 58.
`
`Mr. Snyder sent this request after the IDOC Director of Classification requested copies of initial
`
`review, 7-day review, 30-day reviews, any full reviews, annuals reviews and the Behavioral
`
`Modification Plan for Charles Dawson. Exhibit 3-D.
`
`9. Behavior Modification Plan
`
`Prisoners are entitled to receive a behavior modification plan within three days of their
`
`admission to administrative segregation. Dkt. 175 at 112-113. However, Mr. Dugan provided this
`
`completed form to Mr. Dawson on June 25, 2019 (eight months after Mr. Dawson was placed in
`
`administrative segregation). Id. It recommends that Mr. Dawson participate in every program
`
`listed: ACT program; Education (Literacy or TASC); Thinking for a Change, if available; MRT
`
`Group, if available; Independent Study – Anger Management; Independent Study – Substance
`
`Abuse. Exhibit 4. Mr. Dugan's understood that completion of this programming would assist
`
`Mr. Dawson in getting moved off of administrative segregation. Dkt. 175 at 112.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 2407
`
`10. 30-Day Reviews – June 2019 through September 2019
`
`
`
`The June 2019 30-day review included additional language. Exhibit 2-I. Mr. Dugan wrote:
`
`"Upon successfully completing the four phases of the ACT Program a Department-Wide
`
`Administrative Restrict Housing Status review will be conducted to determine eligibility for
`
`release to complete Phase 5." Id.; dkt. 175 at 131-132.
`
`
`
`On July 1, 2019, a new 30-day review form was adopted by the IDOC. Dkt. 175 at 133;
`
`178 at 71. This form provided the same relevant information as the June 2019 30-day review.
`
`Compare Exhibit 2-J to 2-I. The 30-day review forms for July, August, and September are identical
`
`expect for the date. Exhibits 2-K, 2-L; dkt. 175 at 135.
`
`11. Mr. Dawson's 90-day Review
`
`On August 6, 2019, Jerry Snyder sent an email addressed to Charles Dugan and others.
`
`This email set forth the result of a full 90-day review providing that Mr. Dawson was "Denied due
`
`to OII [Office of Investigation and Intelligence] information of his involvement in a major
`
`trafficking ring at MCF in 2017. Will recommend approval with 2 years clear conduct in November
`
`2019." Exhibit. 3-G. Mr. Snyder instructed staff to "advise offenders of the outcome and make an
`
`appropriate OCMS note." Id. Mr. Dawson's involvement with the trafficking ring is the same
`
`conduct that resulted in his disciplinary segregation sanction. Dkt. 175 at 180. At that time,
`
`Mr. Dawson did not have other disciplinary conduct violations. Id.
`
`
`
`That same day, Mr. Dugan completed a Report of Classification Hearing which told
`
`Mr. Dawson for the first time that he would not get off of administrative segregation until
`
`November 2019, at the earliest. Exhibit 1-J; Dkt. 175 at 181. At this time, Mr. Dugan understood
`
`that even if he recommended a review, Mr. Dawson would not have the opportunity to be released
`
`from administrative segregation for at least three months. Dkt. 175 at 182.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 2408
`
`12. 30-Day Reviews – November 2019 through January 7, 2020
`
`
`
`On November 14, 2019, Mr. Dugan completed a 30-day review that recommended
`
`Mr. Dawson be reviewed for transfer given his overall positive adjustment and because he had
`
`recently completed phase 4 of the ACT program. Exhibit 2-M. Mr. Dugan recommended that
`
`Mr. Dawson be reviewed for release to phase 5 on the ACT program. Id.; dkt. 175 at 136-137.
`
`Mr. Dugan's recommendation could result in a full review. Dkt. 175 at 139-140.
`
`
`
`On January 7, 2020, Mr. Dugan completed another 30-day review. This review reflects that
`
`Mr. Dawson remained in DWAS awaiting a decision on his release. Exhibit 2-N.
`
`No one was ever released as a result of a 30-day review or the appeal of a 30-day review.
`
`Dkt. 175 at 173-174.
`
`13. Charles Dugan
`
`Mr. Dugan is a caseworker at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Dkt. 175 at 91.
`
`He provides reviews and programming, assists with attorney-client phone calls, and delivers legal
`
`mail and law library items. Id. Between 2018 and 2020, Mr. Dugan monitored prisoners in both
`
`the disciplinary segregation area and the administrative segregation areas. Id. at 97. Between 2018
`
`and 2020, one of Mr. Dugan's responsibilities was to conduct 30-day reviews. Mr. Snyder instructed
`
`Mr. Dugan on the language to use when completing the reviews. Dkt. 178 at 92.
`
`Mr. Dugan reported to casework manager Randall Purcell, Unit Team Manager Jerry
`
`Snyder, and Warden Richard Brown. Dkt. 175 at 100-101. During Mr. Dawson's time in
`
`administrative segregation, Mr. Dugan would stop and talk to him regularly and never had any
`
`issues with him. Dkt. 175 at 151.
`
`14. Randall Purcell
`
`Mr. Purcell was a caseworker at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility during the times
`
`relevant to the claims. Dkt. 178 at 11-12. He reported to Jerry Snyder. Mr. Purcell never assisted
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 2409
`
`Mr. Dugan with the inmates held in administrative segregation. Id. at 12-13. Mr. Purcell's only
`
`involvement with Mr. Dawson was initiating his two 90-day reviews. Id. at 13; Exhibit 1-I.
`
`Mr. Purcell would initiate a review in response to a staff or prisoner's request for a 90-day review.
`
`Dkt. 178 at 37. He would forward a questionnaire to the prisoner. That questionnaire asked
`
`prisoners why they are in segregation, what would they like the Office of Investigation and
`
`Intelligence (OII) to know, and how they have bettered themselves in the last 90-days. Id. A
`
`completed questionnaire would then be sent to the decisionmakers including the housing
`
`lieutenant, Mr. Snyder, OII, the deputy warden of reentry and the warden. Dkt. 178 at 38 and 98.
`
`Mr. Purcell testified that he sent this questionnaire to Mr. Dawson in July, but never received a
`
`response. Id. at 38. But Mr. Dawson testified that he was never provided a 90-day questionnaire.
`
`Id. at 178.
`
`Mr. Purcell also initiated a full review in November 2019, after Mr. Dawson had completed
`
`the four phases of the ACT program available in administrative segregation. Id. at 40.
`
`15. Jerry Snyder
`
`Mr. Snyder was a Unit Team Manager. Dkt. 178 at 48. He testified that the purpose of the
`
`30-day review was to determine whether a prisoner should remain in administrative segregation
`
`because he is a threat to the facility. Id. at 51. He understood that before March 2019, the 30-day
`
`reviews were simply prepared forms that took about 30 seconds to complete. Dkt. 178 at 51-52.
`
`Mr. Snyder never disciplined Mr. Dugan for spending 30 seconds on 30-day reviews. Id. at 52.
`
`He believed that Mr. Dugan completed reviews for about 72 inmates in 30 minutes. Dkt. 178
`
`at 105. Mr. Snyder also understood that during the relevant time period, no one was ever released
`
`from administrative segregation as a result of a 30-day review. Id. Mr. Snyder put the 30-day
`
`review protocol in place. Dkt. 175 at 179.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 2410
`
`Mr. Snyder testified that he could have requested a full review of Mr. Dawson but did not
`
`do so until June of 2019, after this lawsuit was filed. Dkt. 178 at 72, 117-118. He further
`
`acknowledged that prisoners are never told how to request a full review which is the only review
`
`that can result in removal from administrative segregation. Id. at 72-73. In addition, Mr. Snyder
`
`was responsible for advising that Mr. Dawson's transfer was denied because he was involved in
`
`trafficking at Miami Correctional Facility in 2017. Id. at 73. It was Mr. Snyder's recommendation
`
`that Mr. Dawson be approved for transfer only after two years of clear conduct. Id. at 74.
`
`16. Richard Brown
`
`Mr. Brown was the Warden at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Dkt. 178 at 119.
`
`He understood that the 30-day reviews were conducted by individuals who had no authority to
`
`make the decision to release someone from administrative segregation. Id. at 122. Nor was there
`
`any review of individual prisoner's characteristics during the 30-day reviews. Id. Warden Brown,
`
`along with Mr. Snyder, put the 30-day review protocol in place. Dkt. 175 at 179.
`
`Mr. Brown was the decision maker at the facility level for all 90-day full reviews. Dkt. 178
`
`at 123. Mr. Brown testified that staff may request 90-day reviews, but that does not happen very
`
`often. Id. at 124. Thus, if neither staff nor a prisoner requests a 90-day review, then a 90-day review
`
`is not conducted, and the prisoner would remain on administrative segregation indefinitely.
`
`Dkt. 178 at 131. Before a prisoner would be transferred out of DWAS, Mr. Brown would have to
`
`recommend release and then that recommendation would be submitted to central office for final
`
`approval. Id. at 138.
`
`II. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Now before the Court is Defendants' Second Motion for Judgment as matter of Law and Motion
`
`for New Trial in the Alternative. Dkt. 169. Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law because Mr. Dawson failed to establish one or more elements of his conditions claim and
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 2411
`
`because there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Dawson was deprived of a meaningful
`
`review as required to support his due process claim. Defendants also seek qualified immunity on all
`
`claims.
`
`Rule 50 provides that this Court may enter judgment as a matter of law if it "finds that a
`
`reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis" to support the verdict. Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1), (b). The Rule 50 "standard largely 'mirrors' the summary-judgment standard,
`
`the difference being that district courts evaluate Rule 50(a) [and 50(b)] motions in light of the trial
`
`record rather than the discovery record." Dupree v. Younger, 143 S. Ct. 1382, 1387 (2023) (citing
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250–251 (1986)). Thus, in reviewing the motion
`
`for judgment as a matter of law, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in Mr. Dawson's favor.
`
`Bohanon v. City of Indianapolis, 46 F.4th 669, 674 (7th Cir. 2022). The Court must "must affirm
`
`the jury's verdict 'unless there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find
`
`for the non-moving party.'" Id. at 675 (quoting J.K.J. v. Polk County, 960 F.3d 367, 378 (7th Cir.
`
`2020) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted)). A Rule 50(b) motion may be granted "only on grounds
`
`advanced in the pre-verdict motion." Howell v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 987 F.3d 647, 659
`
`(7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Abellan v. Lavelo Property Mgmt., LLC, 948 F.3d 820, 827 (7th Cir.
`
`2020)).
`
`The defendants' Rule 50(b) motion seeks judgment as a matter of law based on the doctrine
`
`of qualified immunity. "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from
`
`liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
`
`constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555
`
`U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). "The defense
`
`provides 'ample room for mistaken judgments' and protects all but the 'plainly incompetent and
`
`those who knowingly violate the law.'" Green v. Newport, 868 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 2017)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 2412
`
`(quoting Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 639 (7th Cir. 2008)). "A state official is protected by
`
`qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: '(1) that the official violated a statutory or
`
`constitutional right, and (2) that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged
`
`conduct.'" Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 350–51 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
`
`563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). To be clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, the
`
`right's contours must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood
`
`that what he is doing violates that right. Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 546–47 (7th Cir. 2018).
`
`"Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity is a legal question for
`
`resolution by the court, not a jury." Purtell v. Mason, 527 F.3d 615, 621 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing
`
`Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991)). Qualified immunity "ordinarily should be decided
`
`by the court long before trial," Hunter, 502 U.S. at 228, "because '[t]he entitlement is an immunity
`
`from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,'" id. at 227 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.
`
`511, 526 (1985)); see also Borello v. Allison, 446 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2006) ("Qualified
`
`immunity protects a defendant from liability as well as from the burden of standing trial. For that
`
`reason, courts should determine as early on in the proceedings as possible whether a defendant is
`
`entitled to qualified immunity."). However, when defendants raise a qualified immunity defense
`
`in their answer, dkt. 16 at 2, they do not waive that defense simply by waiting until after trial to
`
`assert this defense in a post-trial motion. Instead, there are occasions when a complete factual
`
`record is necessary. See Emad v. Dodge Cnty., No. 22-1876, 2023 WL 4188509, at *5 (7th Cir.
`
`June 26, 2023) (concluding that summary judgment awarding qualified immunity to defendants
`
`was improper when the factual basis supporting the claims was unclear).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 2413
`
`A. Conditions of Confinement Claims
`
`The jury found for Mr. Dawson on his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
`
`claim, awarding him $1.00 in nominal damages and assessing punitive damages against Mr.
`
`Dugan, $5,000; and Mr. Snyder, $20,000. Mr. Dugan and Mr. Snyder now argue that they are
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Mr. Dawson failed to prove both the objective and
`
`subjective standards of his conditions of confinement case and because they are entitled to
`
`qualified immunity. Dkt. 170 at 13. For the reasons explained below, Mr. Dugan and Mr. Snyder
`
`are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
`
`"'[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an
`
`inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive
`
`risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
`
`could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference.'"
`
`Johnson v. Prentice, 29 F.4th 895, 904 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
`
`837 (1994)). This is known as the deliberate indifference standard. Thus, an Eighth Amendment
`
`claim has subjective and objective elements, "each of which must be satisfied." Quinn v. Wexford
`
`Health Sources, Inc., 8 F.4th 557, 565 (7th Cir. 2021).
`
`1. Objective Element
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that Mr. Dawson has failed to establish the objective element of the
`
`deliberate indifference standard because there was insufficient evidence upon which the jury could
`
`conclude that the conditions in DWAS show a strong likelihood of serious harm. Dkt. 170 at 3.
`
`In response, Mr. Dawson argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that he was subjected
`
`to extreme temperatures,1 was denied proper seating which exacerbated the pain caused by the rod
`
`
`1 Describing the temperatures as "extreme" is somewhat misleading. Mr. Dawson testified that, when the
`temperature was cold, "we would just have to put our thermals, our sweat suit and uniform that they give
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 2414
`
`in his leg, was subjected to sleep deprivation because the lights were on constantly,2 had no
`
`window in his cell, and suffered as a result of the limited opportunity to exercise. Dkt. 179 at 2.
`
`These conditions, he asserts, satisfy the objective element of his conditions claim.
`
`For the purposes of resolving the Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, the
`
`Court assumes that these conditions are objectively sufficiently serious. Thomas v. State of Illinois,
`
`697 F.3d 612, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2012) ("a trier of fact might reasonably conclude that the prisoner
`
`had been subjected to harm sufficient to support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment even if
`
`he had not contracted a disease or suffered any physical pain.").
`
`2. Subjective Element
`
`Next, Mr. Dugan and Mr. Snyder argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law because there is no evidence that they were aware of the risks Mr. Dawson faced as a result of
`
`the temperature, lack of table and chair, sleep deprivation, or inadequate exercise. Dkt. 170 at 5.
`
`Nor is there any evidence that they had any authority to change the challenged conditions or that
`
`they failed to take reasonable measures to abate the risk of serious injury posed by the challenged
`
`conditions. Dkt. 170 at 5-7.
`
`Mr. Dawson disagrees. He explains in response:
`
`Testimony established that personnel at Wabash was aware that the lights were on
`constantly, that there was no air conditioning in the summer. The liable defendants did
`not dispute the testimony of [Mr.] Dawson as to those conditions. All liable defendants
`
`
`us to stay warm in there." See Dkt. 178 at 241. Also, when the air conditioning was not working, staff would
`"open up the door to -- the end of the door at the end of the range for us to get fresh air. And I think we
`were allowed a fan in there, too." Id.
`2 The same light is on in general population cells.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00222-MG-JPH Document 190 Filed 08/23/23 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 2415
`
`were aware that the administrative segr