Friedmann v. Parker

573 F.Supp.3d 1221

Alexander FRIEDMANN, Plaintiff,

v.Tony PARKER, et al., Defendants.

NO. 3:21-cv-00721

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed November 23, 2021

Christopher W. Smith, David Randolph Smith, Dominick R. Smith, William Lyon Chadwick, Jr., Law Offices of David Randolph Smith & Associates, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Pamela S. Lorch, Tennessee Attorney General's Office, Nashville, TN, for Defendants Tony Parker, Tony Mays, Michael Keys, George Firestine.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Alexander Friedmann is a pretrial detainee who has spent 21 months in solitary confinement in the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"). He is suing several TDOC officials ("Defendants") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his conditions of confinement amount to unconstitutional pretrial punishment. He has moved for a preliminary injunction requiring that Defendants remove him from isolation. (Doc. No. 12). The Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Friedmann is charged with vandalizing a detention center overseen by the Davidson County Sheriff's Office ("DCSO"). (Compl. ¶ 13).¹ He allegedly entered the center while it was under construction and concealed firearms and other contraband in its walls using power tools. (Id.; Doc. No. 15-2 at 2). According to Defendants, Mr. Friedmann "masquerad[ed] as a construction worker" to gain access to the construction site. (Doc. No. 15 at 2, 13).

The DCSO took Mr. Friedmann into custody based on the alleged vandalism in February 2020. (Compl. ¶ 11; Doc. No. 15-2 at 7). It then applied to have Mr. Friedmann moved to the TDOC for safekeeping pending trial. (Doc. No. 15-1 at 1). Judge Cheryl Blackburn of the Davidson County Criminal Court granted the application and ordered Mr. Friedmann's transfer. (Id. ). The TDOC took custody of Mr. Friedmann on February 19, 2020 and placed him at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution ("RMSI"). (Compl. ¶ 14).

The RMSI has several housing units. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17). Unit 1 is the most restrictive. (Id. ¶ 16). There, prisoners are held in solitary confinement and "remain in their cells 23 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day on weekends and holidays." (Id. ¶ 31). Inmates in Unit 1 are "limited to noncontact visits with attorneys, clergy, and ... immediate family members." (Id. ¶ 35). And they are "restricted in the items [they] can purchase from the RMSI commissary." (Id. ¶ 36). When Mr. Friedmann arrived at the RMSI, Unit 1 contained 96 cells. (Id. ¶ 18). Two of them, referred to as "iron man" cells, were even more restrictive than the rest.² (Id. ). Mr. Friedmann was immediately assigned to an iron man cell in Unit 1. (Id. ¶ 24).

Iron man cells have several features that distinguish them. Their walls and ceilings are made of welded steel plates. (Id. ¶ 21). They "contain only a steel-plate bench for a bed; a steel combination sink and toilet; a shower head mounted on one wall and a drain in the floor." (Id. ¶ 23). The cells "have no shelves to store personal belongings ... no electric outlet (and thus no ability to use basic appliances such as televisions and lamps); no steel wall mirror for personal grooming; no table to write on; and no stool to sit on." (Id. ¶ 19). In comparison, "condemned prisoners on Death Row in Unit 2 at [the] RMSI are housed in cells that have stools, tables, shelves, mirrors, regular size windows, and electric outlets so they can watch television and use other plug-in appliances." (Id. ¶ 50). Iron man cells are also darker than regular cells; they have vertical slit windows less than two inches wide and are painted dark gray (instead of white, like other cells). (Id. ¶ 22). And iron man cells are colder than regular cells. (Id. ¶ 21). The "steel plates absorb and retain cold temperatures ... particularly during the winter months."³ (Id. ).

Mr. Friedmann has remained in an iron man cell for nearly two years, with two exceptions. (Id. ¶ 24). In January 2021, Mr. Friedmann spent a week in federal custody at the Grayson County Detention Center ("GCDC") in Kentucky. (Id. ¶ 45). There, he was "housed in a communal cell with 9 to 15 other prisoners ... without incident." (Id. ¶ 46). When Mr. Friedmann returned to the RMSI, he was kept in the prison infirmary in a standard cell during a 14-day quarantine period. (Id. ¶ 47). This period also passed "without incident." (Id. ).

According to Mr. Friedmann, he is suffering psychological symptoms due to his confinement in the iron man cell. (Id. ¶ 53). They include depression, stress, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, memory loss, and loss of concentration. (Id. ). Mr. Friedmann is also suffering physical injuries, including weight loss; back problems from sleeping on the steel-plated bed; and eye strain, blurred vision, and headaches from the poor lighting in his cell. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 71, 77).

On September 16, 2021, Mr. Friedmann filed the instant suit against TDOC Commissioner Tony Parker, RMSI Warden Tony Mays, and RMSI employees Michael Keys, George Firestine, and Celesta Williams. (Doc. No. 1). He moved for a preliminary injunction on October 12, 2021. (Doc. No. 12). The parties agreed their filings would be sufficient to resolve Mr. Friedmann's motion. (Doc. No. 14). The motion has been fully briefed. (Doc. Nos. 12, 15, 18).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A district court must consider four factors when determining whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction: (1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the impact of an injunction upon the public interest." Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 274 F.3d 377, 400 (6th Cir. 2001). Generally, these "four considerations are factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met." Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation omitted). However, the irreparable injury factor is "indispensable." D.T. v. Sumner Cty. Sch., 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019).

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Patel, 2020 WL 5849346, at *5. Plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions must present "more than ‘scant evidence’ to substantiate their allegations."⁴ Id. at *4 (quoting Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403, 417 (6th Cir. 2014) ). Whether to grant an injunction is "within the discretion of the district court." Id.

III. ANALYSIS

The Court applies the preliminary injunction factors below. It finds each factor weighs in favor of granting Mr. Friedmann relief. The Court will issue an injunction requiring that Defendants remove Mr. Friedmann from solitary confinement.

A. Mr. Friedmann Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of His Claim.

Mr. Friedmann will likely prevail in his § 1983 lawsuit. Under § 1983, prisoners may sue state officials who deprive them of their constitutional rights. Hardin v. Straub, 954 F.2d 1193, 1198 (6th Cir. 1992). The record shows (1) Defendants are depriving Mr. Friedmann of his constitutional rights and (2) Defendants’ counterarguments are unavailing.

1. Mr. Friedmann Is Suffering Ongoing Deprivations of His Constitutional Rights.

Mr. Friedmann contends his conditions of confinement violate his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. (Compl. ¶ 85). The Due Process Clause protects detainees from being "punished prior to an adjudication of guilt." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ; see also Thompson v. Cty. of Medina, 29 F.3d 238, 242 (6th Cir. 1994). Pretrial detainees can demonstrate they are being "subjected to unconstitutional punishment" by showing a "restriction or condition" of their confinement "is not rationally related to a legitimate government objective or is excessive in relation to that purpose."⁵ J.H. v. Williamson Cty., 951 F.3d 709, 717 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861 ); Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 185 (4th Cir. 2018). To determine if a condition of confinement is "excessive," courts analyze the "totality of [the] circumstances." J.H., 951 F.3d at 718. The totality of the circumstances shows Mr. Friedmann's conditions of confinement are excessive relative to Defendants’ goals of maintaining prison security and ensuring Mr. Friedmann's presence at trial. (See Doc. No. 15 at 14).

First , the "nature" of Mr. Friedmann's confinement is excessively harsh. J.H., 951 F.3d at 718. His cell is barren. (See Compl. ¶ 23). It is darker and colder than other cells. (Id. ¶¶ 21–22). Mr. Friedmann does not have a table or a stool. (Id. ¶ 19). He is isolated for 23 to 24 hours per day. (Id. ¶ 31). He is denied personal items and means of intellectual stimulation that are afforded to other inmates. (Id. ¶¶ 36–37). Even prisoners who have been convicted and sentenced to death are housed more humanely than Mr. Friedmann. (See id. ¶ 50; Doc. No. 16 ¶ 50). Courts have held pretrial detainees kept in similar conditions suffered unconstitutional punishment. United States v. Gotti, 755 F. Supp. 1159, 1160, 1165 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (pretrial detainees isolated "in a small cell with inadequate lighting for 23 hours each day" suffered unconstitutional punishment); see also Stirling, 912 F.3d at 179 (a jury could "readily" find a pretrial safekeeper isolated and "restricted to his cell twenty-three hours a day, with minimal access to books, phones, or any human contact" was unconstitutionally punished); J.H., 951 F.3d at 719 (pretrial detainee who was "completely isolated" from other prisoners was unconstitutionally punished, assuming the truth of his allegations). The nature of Mr. Friedmann's segregation supports a finding that his conditions of confinement are punitive.

Second , the "duration" of Mr. Friedmann's isolation appears...