William Harden v. Scott Bodiford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-02362-RMG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998652537] Mailed to: William G. Harden. [11-6017]

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 1 of 13

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6017

WILLIAM G. HARDEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SCOTT
BODIFORD,
Administrator,
in
his
official
and
individual capacity; JAMES M. DORRIETY, Administrator, in
his official and individual capacity; CORPORAL CATHEY,
Detention Officer, in her official and individual capacity;
GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; PAUL B. WICKENSEIMER,
Clerk of Court for Greenville County, in his official and
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-02362-RMG)

Submitted:

July 8, 2011

Decided:

August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

William G. Harden, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 2 of 13

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 3 of 13

PER CURIAM:
William G. Harden, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks
review of the district court’s orders granting summary judgment
and partial summary dismissal to Defendants in Harden’s pro se
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit and denying Harden’s motion for
reconsideration.
denial

of

Harden

access

incarceration

at

to

courts

the

(“Detention Center”).

alleged

claims
(among

Greenville

of

forced

others)

County

labor

during

Detention

and
his

Center

We affirm in part and vacate and remand

in part. 1

I.
Harden alleged that from June 2007 to October 2007,
when he was a pretrial detainee, he was assigned to work as a
“pod

worker.”

He

was

informed

that,

if

he

refused

assignments, he would be placed in punitive segregation.

work

He was

required to work seven days a week, ten hours a day, until he
was released.
than

145

His alleged duties included serving meals to more

inmates;

sorting

uniforms;

distributing

blankets;

cleaning floors, tables, walls, windows, and railings; scrubbing
showers; emptying trash; and cleaning up after other inmates.
1

We previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Harden’s
interlocutory appeal from certain of the district court’s
orders. Harden v. Bodiford, No. 10-6041 (4th Cir. May 27, 2010).

3

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 4 of 13

Harden further alleged that he was 66-years-old at the time and
that he was one of only four to six workers assigned to clean
the

entire

institution.

As

“relief,”

Harden

calculated

his

damages based on an hourly wage.
In

their

motion

for

summary

judgment,

Defendants

asserted that Harden voluntarily signed up to participate in
the inmate worker program, that he was appropriately screened
medically

for

his

assignments,

and

that

he

earned

certain

benefits and privileges from his participation in the program,
e.g., extra food, etc.

Defendants asserted that there was a

waiting

desiring

list

of

inmates

to

participate

in

the

work

program and that it would have been easy for Harden to terminate
his participation had he wished to do so. In his response to the
motion for summary judgment, which took the form of a hand-drawn
affidavit submitted under penalties of perjury, together with a
memorandum

of

legal

authorities,

Harden

denied

that

he

volunteered to participate in the inmate work program. He again
insisted

that

involuntary
contention,

his

claim

servitude
his

was

a

claim

of

and

that,

contrary

choices

were

stark:

forced
to

the

work

labor

and

Defendants’
or

solitary

confinement.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor
of

Defendants,

holding

that

“a

claim

arising

from

the

non-

payment of wages to an inmate is not valid under 42 U.S.C.
4

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 5 of 13

§ 1983, whether asserted as breach of contract, denial of equal
protection,

involuntary

punishment.”

The

servitude

court

or

denied

cruel

and

Harden’s

unusual

motion

for

reconsideration, ruling that “[a]ssigning a prisoner to a work
detail without compensation is not unconstitutional.”
We review de novo a district court's award of summary
judgment, S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm'n, 612
F.3d 752, 755 (4th Cir. 2010), viewing the underlying facts and
the permissible inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. See In Re French, 499 F.3d
345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007).
It

is

settled

that

a

pretrial

subjected to any form of punishment.
1079, 1085 (4th Cir. 1993).
condition

of

confinement

detainee

may

not

be

Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d

To establish that a particular

is

constitutionally

impermissible

punishment, the pretrial detainee must show that it was either
(1) imposed with intent to punish or (2) not reasonably related
to a legitimate non-punitive governmental objective (such that
an intent to punish could be inferred).

Id.

In Hause, we found

that “general housekeeping responsibilities” are not inherently
punitive

and

are

related

to

the

legitimate,

governmental objective of prison cleanliness.

non-punitive
Id.; see also

Channer v. Hall, 112 F.3d 214, 218-19 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding
that “housekeeping chores” like “fixing meals, scrubbing dishes,
5

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 6 of 13

doing the laundry, and cleaning the building” fit within the
Thirteenth Amendment’s “civic duty” exception to the prohibition
against involuntary servitude). 2
Having carefully reviewed the record here in the light
most

favorable

allegations,

if

to

Harden,

true,

we

conclude

describe

that

circumstances

those in the “general housekeeping” cases.

Harden’s
that

sworn

rise

above

Specifically, we

conclude that Harden’s allegations are sufficient to sustain a
claim

of

unconstitutional

punishment.

See

Tourscher

v.

McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 242 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that “the
nature of the services” and “the amount of time they took” was
required information before the court could determine if prison
officials deprived pretrial detainee of Thirteenth Amendment or
due

process

(noting

that

refused

to

rights);

see

also

threatening
work

could

Channer,

prisoners
rise

to

with
the

112

F.3d

at

segregation
level

of

217-18
if

they

involuntary

servitude); Ford v. Nassau County Executive, 41 F. Supp.2d 392,
398 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting that “unduly strenuous” tasks might
indicate intent to punish).

We are persuaded that the district

2

Harden also frames his claims under the Thirteenth
Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.
While
the Thirteenth Amendment does not apply to convicted prisoners,
it may provide a cause of action, under certain circumstances,
when a pretrial detainee is forced to work.
See Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).

6

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

court

erred

when

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

it

credited

the

Page: 7 of 13

Defendants’

assertion

that

Harden had voluntarily consented to participate in the Detention
Center’s inmate work program. To the contrary, in the face of
Harden’s

sworn

denial

of

the

Defendants’

factual

assertions,

there remained genuine disputes of material fact not amenable to
resolution on summary judgment.
Moreover, the district court construed Harden’s claim
too

narrowly

as

one

for

“lost

wages.”

Specifically,

the

district court concluded that “[a]ssigning a prisoner to a work
detail

without

considering

compensation

Harden’s

pretrial

he

uniforms,

was

required

cleaning,

not

unconstitutional”

detainee

status

or

without

the

actual

We note that the type of tasks Harden

nature of his job(s).
alleges

is

to

perform

etc.

–-

are

–-

distributing

mainly

of

food

and

the

general

housekeeping nature that this court approved in Hause.

Indeed,

to hold that such tasks are inherently punitive might deprive
both detainees and staff of constructive activities useful to
the

proper

prevention

maintenance
of

frustrations

of

prolonged

it

might

detention
inactivity

engender

among

facilities
and

the

those

and

to

the

accompanying

awaiting

trial.

Harden has, however, alleged a particularly onerous volume of
such

ordinary

without

housekeeping

proper

review

as

tasks,
to

and

we

whether

thus

cannot

Harden’s

circumstances evidence an impermissible intent to punish.
7

affirm

specific

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 8 of 13

For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s orders
and remand for further proceedings. 3

II.
Harden also alleged that the Detention Center had no
law

library

or

assistance.

any

alternative

resources

for

detainee

legal

As such, he was not able to determine that he had a

claim for involuntary servitude until after his release.

The

Defendants

for

did

not

summary judgment.

address

this

claim

in

their

motion

In his response, Harden realleged his claims

and added that, during his separate 2008 incarceration, he was
unable

to

research

and

file

a

motion

to

set

aside

his

convictions or a notice of appeal in the same cases.
The

magistrate

judge

recommended

granting

summary

judgment on the basis that Harden was able to file the instant
action upon his release.
Harden’s

allegations

that

The magistrate judge did not address
he

could

3

not

attack

his

criminal

In remanding the “forced labor” claim for further
consideration, we note that the district court decided the
motion for summary judgment without the benefit of any discovery
by the parties and without the benefit of a reply memorandum
from the Defendants. We further note that there is some question
as to whether Harden has fully identified the correctional
officer who allegedly threatened him with punitive segregation
should he refuse work assignments. In any event, we of course
intimate no view as to the extent or the ultimate outcome of
further proceedings before the district court.

8

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

convictions.

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 9 of 13

In his timely objections to the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, Harden argued that he was held at the
Detention Center based on an “unwarranted bench warrant (as the
Circuit Court later determined)” and for lack of legal resources
he was unable to apply for injunctive relief or habeas corpus to
obtain his liberty.
court

granted

Despite these allegations, the district

summary

judgment,

ruling

that,

“Plaintiff

has

offered no evidence of any impediment in the timely assertion of
his legal rights.”

In his motion for reconsideration, Harden

again

he

alleged

that

was

unable,

in

2008,

“to

have

his

conviction set aside and his release from the detention center
effectuated.”

The

district

court

denied

the

motion

for

reconsideration, concluding that, “Plaintiff has not and cannot
demonstrate any actual injury.”
The Constitution does not guarantee an inmate adequate
legal

assistance

and

an

adequate

law

library;

rather,

guarantees a right to reasonable access to the courts.

it
See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 838 (1977).

In order to establish a claim of denial

of access to the courts, an inmate cannot rely on conclusory
allegations but must instead allege an actual injury or specific
harm or prejudice that has resulted from the denial.
Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

9

Cochran v.

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 10 of 13

In the course of the proceedings below, Harden alleged
that he was imprisoned on improper bench warrants erroneously
issued

based

incarceration

on

his

took

alleged

place

eight days in March 2008.

from

failure

March

to

to

appear.

October

This

2007

and

for

He further asserted that the bench

warrants were shown, in later state court proceedings, to be
improper.

Specifically,

with

regard

to

the

first

warrant,

Harding asserts that he (eventually) proved that he had not been
properly notified of his duty to appear.

Regarding the second

warrant, Harden claimed that the warrant was lifted when the
Solicitor’s

Office

admitted

“that

it

had

submitted

false

testimony.”

Harden claimed that, had he been given access to a

law library or other legal assistance, he would have determined
that

he

could

challenge

these

bench

warrants

and

would

have

spent a shorter time in detention.
Neither

the

Defendants

nor

the

district

court

addressed Harden’s allegations that his lack of access to legal
assistance prevented him from challenging his unwarranted pretrial incarceration.

Similarly, the Defendants did not dispute

his assertions that the Detention Center lacked a law library or
alternative
assistance.
court

resources

detainees

basic

legal

Instead, the Defendants contended, and the district

concluded,

injury.

affording

that

Harden

had

failed

to

show

any

actual

We disagree. Because Harden’s undisputed allegations
10

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 11 of 13

are sufficient, if believed, to show that he was denied access
to courts and suffered genuine prejudice, resulting in prolonged
incarceration, we vacate the portions of the district court’s
orders dismissing the access to courts claim and remand for such
further consideration as the district court deems advisable in
light of our disposition of this appeal.

III.
Harden
parties

claims

inequitably.

that

the

district

Specifically,

court

Harden

treated

asserts

that

the
the

court sua sponte granted the Defendants an extension of time to
file their motion for summary judgment, while denying his motion
for

an

order

of

default.

In

contrast,

the

court

allegedly

ignored Harden’s motions for extension of time.
The record belies Harden’s assertions.
for extensions of time were promptly granted.

His requests
Defendants did

informally request an extension of time to file a motion for
summary judgment.

While Defendants’ motion for an extension of

time was not timely made, the deadline in question was a matter
of

court

scheduling,

Accordingly,

we

rather

conclude

than

that

it

a

statutory

was

within

requirement.
the

court’s

discretion to grant the Defendants’ belated request to extend
time.

11

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 12 of 13

IV.
Finally, Harden asserted that the Clerk of Court of
Greenville County, Defendant Paul B. Wickenseimer, abused his
powers to issue subpoenas to compel attendance at court.
magistrate

judge

recommended

dismissing

the

claims

The

against

Wickenseimer on the ground that Wickenseimer was protected by
quasi-judicial immunity (among other bases).
Harden

sought

Wickenseimer;
relief
system.

he

to

withdraw

sought,

requiring

the

his

instead,

creation

of

In his objections,

damage

claims

declaratory

and

a

new

against
injunctive

attendance-tracking

He also sought to add a claim under the South Carolina

Tort Claims Act.

Finding that Harden did not object to the

magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court dismissed
the claims against Wickenseimer without prejudice.
Harden

challenges

the

district

court’s

On appeal,

conclusion

that

Wickenseimer was protected by immunity. 4
The district court reviews de novo those portions of
the magistrate judge’s report to which specific objections are
made.

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).

In

the absence of objections, the district court is not required to
4

In his reply brief on appeal, Harden also asserts that he
sought to amend his complaint. However, Harden has waived this
issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Yousefi
v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001) (declining to consider
claim raised for the first time in reply brief).

12

Appeal: 11-6017

Document: 22

Date Filed: 08/11/2011

Page: 13 of 13

explain its reasons for adopting the report.
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

Camby v. Davis,

Additionally, the filing of

specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of the
recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to
object will waive appellate review.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d

841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 155 (1985).
Because Harden received notice of the consequences of
a failure to object and yet did not object to the finding of
quasi-judicial immunity, he has waived his right to appellate
review.
order

Accordingly, we do not disturb the district court’s

dismissing

(without

prejudice)

Harden’s

claims

against

Wickenseimer.

V.
For the reasons set out above, we affirm in part and
vacate

and

remand

in

part.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

13