United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 11, 2004
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40180
Summary Calendar
JASON LANDON BLAKENEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RUSK COUNTY SHERIFF; JAMES STROUD; JERRY KESINGER;
JIMMI CANDY; DARYL NORRIS; RICKY ALEXANDER;
CHANEY HOWETH; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:02-CV-241)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jason Landon Blakeney, Texas prisoner # 1093381, appeals, pro
se, the dismissal, following a bench trial, of his civil rights
action against Rusk County jail officials and unknown defendants
for claimed violations of his constitutional rights while he was a
pre-trial detainee. Blakeney bases error on the finding that his
being placed in a restraint chair from 1:00 p.m. on 24 July 2001
until approximately 9:00 a.m. the next day (20 hours), was not
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
punishment. He also contends that being denied food, water, access
to a toilet, and exercise while in the restraint chair was
deliberate indifference. Blakeney has waived the other claims he
raised in his complaint. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 868 (1994). (Blakeney’s motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED.)
Blakeney’s first claim — due process right not to be punished
violated by being placed in restraint chair — is premised on the
rule that pre-trial detainees cannot be subjected to punishment.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). “[U]nder Bell, a pretrial
detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are
not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose”. Hare
v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 640 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Bell test applies “when a pretrial detainee attacks general
conditions, practices, rules, or restrictions of pretrial
confinement”. Id. at 643.
Blakeney’s second claim involves a standard of deliberate
indifference. When a claim is based on the “episodic acts or
omissions” of jail officials, the standard of subjective deliberate
indifference is applicable. See id. at 643, 650. Blakeney
contends that not providing him with food, water, toilet-access,
and exercise while he was in the chair was such an episodic act.
Regardless whether Blakeney’s 20-hour confinement in the
restraint chair was a condition of confinement or an episodic act,
2
Blakeney has not shown reversible error. Facts found through a
bench trial are reviewed only for clear error. Williams v. Kaufman
County, 352 F.3d 994, 1001 (5th Cir. 2003).
With respect to the claim under the Bell-standard, the court
found:
In the present case, Rusk County jail
officials were confronted with an unruly and
dangerous pretrial detainee who was creating
havoc in the jail. He was placed in the
restrictive chair after he disobeyed orders
and engaged in destructive practices, such as
starting fires, knocking holes in the wall and
pulling pipes out of the wall.... With respect
to the incident on July 24, 2001, the
Plaintiff was again engaging in misconduct and
destructive behavior, which included setting
fires and flooding his cell. A tactical team
was again sent into the cell, and the
plaintiff was strapped to the restraint
chair.... It is clear that Lt. Kesinger was
using the restraint chair and other
restrictions as a means of controlling a
particularly unruly and destructive detainee.
Based on this, the court did not err in holding that the restraint
chair had not been used for punishment. Because the challenged
condition or restriction — the restraint chair — was reasonably
related to a legitimate governmental objective — to stop Blakeney’s
destructive behavior — the court did not err in not inferring a
punitive purpose. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 539. There was no
violation of his rights as a pre-trial detainee under Bell. See
Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 104 (5th Cir. 1996).
Concerning Blakeney’s contention that keeping him in the
restraining chair without providing him food, water, toilet-access,
3
or exercise, amounted to actionable subjective deliberate
indifference, the court found that defendants “acted with the proper
intent of endeavoring to stop the Plaintiff from engaging in extreme
misconduct in a nonpunitive manner” and they “did not act with
deliberate indifference”. As discussed below, these findings were
not clearly erroneous.
Regarding Blakeney’s not-fed claim, Lieutenant Kesinger
testified that he did not order that Blakeney not be fed; and
Sergeant Dickerson testified that an inmate will be given a meal in
the restraint chair if it is meal time and the inmate allows it.
The jail log indicates that Blakeney actively resisted being in the
chair through 10:00 p.m. on 24 July, then slept much of the night,
and was fed breakfast at 6:10 a.m.
Regarding Blakeney’s no-water claim, Sergeant Dickerson
testified that an inmate will be given water while in the restraint
chair if the inmate will accept it; that she did not offer Blakeney
any because he slept most of the night; but that she gave him juice
in the morning. Lieutenant Kesinger testified that an inmate in the
restraint chair who requests water will be given water; and that he
never left instructions that Blakeney not be given water. Blakeney
offered no evidence that he had requested water while in the
restraint chair.
Regarding Blakeney’s no-toilet claim, the log does not show
that Blakeney was allowed to use it; but Lieutenant Kesinger
4
testified that, had Blakeney requested to do so, an evaluation would
have been made to determine whether it was appropriate to allow
that. Blakeney did not demonstrate that he ever asked to do so.
Finally, regarding Blakeney’s no-exercise claim, Lieutenant
Kesinger testified that he had consulted with a doctor and had been
told that restraint chair use should not exceed 24 hours.
Blakeney’s restraint did not exceed this, and he has not shown that
Lieutenant Kesinger was deliberately indifferent.
MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED
5