Stephen L. Ustrak, Cross-Appellant v. James W. Fairman, Cross-Appellee
781 F.2d 573 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Retaliating against a prisoner for exercising their limited First Amendment right to complain about prison conditions is unconstitutional. However, to recover more than nominal compensatory damages for an intangible injury such as the loss of amenities, the prisoner must provide specific, non-conclusory evidence to prove the extent and value of the harm suffered.
Facts:
- Stephen Ustrak, a white inmate, was incarcerated at Pontiac state prison, where the inmate population was 80-90% black and the warden, Fairman, was black.
- Ustrak was disciplined for possessing contraband found on his side of his cell, but his black cellmate was not disciplined, contrary to an apparent prison practice.
- Ustrak applied for a library clerk position but did not receive it; three black inmates were hired to fill the three vacancies, including one that had been reserved for a white inmate under a consent decree.
- Over a two-year period, Ustrak wrote approximately ten letters to Warden Fairman complaining about alleged racial discrimination and prior denials of his transfer requests.
- The prison's assignment committee recommended that Ustrak be transferred from a maximum-security unit to the 'farm,' a medium-security facility.
- Warden Fairman overruled the committee's recommendation and denied the transfer, citing Ustrak's prior conviction for bail jumping as the reason.
- Ustrak also wrote a letter containing vulgar and abusive language directed at prison officers, such as calling them 'stupid lazy assholes'.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Ustrak sued Warden Fairman in the U.S. District Court (trial court) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Warden Fairman on the count challenging a prison regulation against vulgar language.
- The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for Ustrak for almost $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
- Warden Fairman, as the appellant, appealed the jury's verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- Ustrak, as the cross-appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment against him.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warden violate a prisoner's First Amendment rights by denying a transfer to a medium-security facility in retaliation for the prisoner's written complaints about prison conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
Yes, a warden violates a prisoner's First Amendment rights by denying a transfer in retaliation for the prisoner's complaints. Although prisoners' free speech rights are limited, they are protected from retaliation for filing grievances. The court found that a rational jury could have concluded that the warden's stated reason for denying the transfer—Ustrak's bail-jumping history—was pretextual and that the true motive was annoyance with Ustrak's letters. However, the court reversed the jury's findings of racial discrimination regarding the contraband discipline and the library job denial, holding that the mere fact a white inmate was treated less favorably than a black inmate in a majority-black prison with an affirmative action decree is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination without more evidence of racial animus. The court also held that to recover compensatory damages for the loss of prison amenities, a plaintiff must prove the extent of the injury with specific evidence, not just conclusory statements; Ustrak’s failure to do so limited his recovery to nominal damages of $1. Finally, the court affirmed that a prison regulation prohibiting 'disrespectful' and 'abusive' language does not violate the First Amendment, as such rules are essential for prison discipline and the doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth have limited application in the prison context.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standards for both reverse discrimination claims and damage calculations in constitutional tort cases. It establishes a high bar for white plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination in environments with affirmative action plans, requiring more than a simple showing of disparate treatment. Crucially, the case sets a significant precedent regarding damages, mandating that plaintiffs provide specific, concrete proof of intangible harm, such as the loss of prison amenities, to recover more than nominal damages. This holding pressures plaintiffs to quantify their injuries with objective evidence rather than relying on subjective or conclusory testimony, potentially limiting damage awards in future civil rights cases.
