HANKINS v. WOLF et al

Filing 182

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 181 Security Measures at Trial. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 07/13/16. (mcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O WOLF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) 1:12-cv-00168
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In advance of trial, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference on July 13, 2016
with Pro Se Plaintiff Robert Hankins, defense counsel, and a representative of the U.S. Marshals
Service (“USMS”) to discuss the security measures, if any, that will be used at the upcoming jury
trial and the efforts that will be taken to minimize the potential prejudice to Plaintiff in light of
those measures.1 This Memorandum Order reflects the Court’s ruling(s) on those matters.2
A decision regarding the types of security measures that will be used at trial ultimately
rests with the Court, not the Marshals. See Sides v. Cherry, 609 F.3d 576, 582 (3d Cir. 2010). In
exercising its discretion, the Court has to “balance the prejudice to the prisoner-plaintiff against
the need to maintain safety or security.” Id. at 581 (citations omitted). To that end, the Court
“may rely on a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) records bearing on the inmate’s

1. Prior to ordering physical restraints on a prisoner-plaintiff in a civil jury trial, a district court should, at the least,
“hold a proceeding outside the presence of the jury to address the issue with counsel.” Sides v. Cherry, 609 F.3d
576, 582 (3d Cir. 2010). But where “there are genuine and material factual disputes regarding the threat to
courtroom security posed by a prisoner-plaintiff, an evidentiary hearing is called for.” Id. In this case, the Court
finds that a full-blown evidentiary hearing is not necessary. Defense counsel has placed on the record sufficient
facts regarding Mr. Hankins’ background, which he does not contest, that allows the Court to exercise its discretion.
2. During the telephone conference, Mr. Hankins made an oral motion regarding spoliation of evidence, namely a
cell extraction video. Defense counsel opposed the motion, arguing that Mr. Hankins was raising this issue for the
first time in this four-year-long litigation. The Court deferred ruling on Mr. Hankins’ motion, but it has since
reconsidered same. Accordingly, Mr. Hankins’ oral motion is DENIED, for substantially the same reasons
advanced by defense counsel during the telephonic conference.

‘proclivity toward disruptive and/or violent conduct’ (such as the inmate’s criminal history and
prison disciplinary record), and the opinions of ‘correctional and/or law enforcement officers and
the federal marshals.’”

Id. (quoting Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 246 (7th Cir. 1993)).

“[T]hough a district court may rely ‘heavily’ on advice from court security officers, it ‘bears the
ultimate responsibility’ of determining what restraints are necessary.” Id. (quoting Woods v.
Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 248 (7th Cir. 1993)). If the Court decides that “restraints are necessary, it
should ‘impose no greater restraints than are necessary, and [ ] must take steps to minimize the
prejudice resulting from the presence of the restraints.’” Id. (quoting Davidson v. Riley, 44 F.3d
1118, 1123 (2d Cir. 1995)). “[T]aking steps to reduce the visibility of restraints and the giving of
limiting or curative instructions dealing with the shackles are appropriate methods of eliminating
potential prejudice.” Woods, 5 F.3d at 249.
The facts placed on the record during the telephonic conference demonstrate the need for
security measures to ensure safety in the Courtroom during trial. For instance, defense counsel
explained that, in Mr. Hankins’ eighteen-yeas in DOC custody, he has amassed over twohundred (200) misconducts – eighty of which were assaultive in nature while twenty-six were
actual assault incidents.

Mr. Hankins has also sustained an additional conviction while

incarcerated for aggravated assault with bodily injury to an officer. As such, he has been
designated as the highest security level, with placement on the restricted release list and in the
special management unit, which is the “last resort,” so to speak.
With this background in mind, the Court deems physical restraints necessary; Mr.
Hankins will remain in leg-irons throughout the trial and wear under his clothes a “rack belt,”
which is capable of delivering an electronic charge / stun. To minimize the potential prejudice to
Mr. Hankins, the Court will order him to be moved into the Courtroom outside the presence of

2

the jury, sit him furthest from the jury, and ask him to testify from counsel table – both of which
will be skirted with a drape. A representative of the USMS has also ensured the Court that the
leg irons will be wrapped so that they are not audible to the (potential) jurors. In addition, the
Court will direct the DOC officials and/or Deputy U.S. Marshal(s) responsible for escorting and
supervising Mr. Hankins to disperse throughout the Courtroom to make them less conspicuous to
the (potential) jurors.

These measures will substantially minimize, if not eliminate, the

likelihood that the jurors will know of the security measures. If it comes to the Court’s attention,
however, that the shackles or other security measures become visible or otherwise apparent to
the jury during the trial, the Court will give a curative instruction.3
In light the pending transfer of Mr. Hankins to a facility in or around the Western District
of Pennsylvania, defense counsel is directed to transmit a copy of this Memorandum Order to
him FORTHWITH.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day, of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
Senior United States District Judge
3. In Sides v. Cherry, the Court of Appeals found that the following jury instruction, given by then-Chief Judge
Gary L. Lancaster at the beginning of trial, cured any prejudice to the plaintiff:
The Constitution does not stop at the prison walls. All prisoners, including Mr. Sides, are afforded
the same protections under the United States Constitution as you and I.
However, according to standard policy of the Department of Corrections, Mr. Sides will be
secured while in the courtroom and accompanied by uniformed officers here in the courtroom.
Again, this is a . . . standard procedure[ ] for all inmates, and is not innate to Mr. Sides. Such
procedures are always employed when any inmate comes into the courtroom. While these
circumstances are hard to ignore, you must keep in mind that this is not something special, no
special thing we are doing for Mr. Sides. It is simply the standard procedure.
Also, during the course of the trial, other inmates may testify. These inmates will also be secured
and accompanied by uniformed officers. Again, you are not to allow these standard security
measures to distract you from your job. That is to decide the case based . . . solely on the
evidence.
609 F.3d 576, 585 (3d Cir. 2010) (alterations in original). The Court will give a modified version of this instruction,
if necessary.

3

cc:

ROBERT HANKINS
DT-3209
SCI CAMP HILL
P.O. BOX 200
CAMP HILL, PA 17001
PRO SE
Mary Lynch Friedline, Esquire
Email: [e-mail]

4