Contraband Watches and Constitutional Protections: Defining Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Boundaries

Introduction

This commentary examines the Second Circuit’s summary order in Johnson v. Chappius, 24-1225 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2025), a case in which the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to prison officials who placed an inmate on a 61-day contraband watch. The principal legal questions were whether the watch violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, the First Amendment’s protection against retaliation, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process guarantees. Christopher Johnson, serving time at Elmira Correctional Facility, challenged his treatment after an x-ray allegedly revealed a razor-type weapon in his rectum. The Court addressed:

The subjective and objective elements of an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference;
The elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in a prison context;
The limited liberty interest implicated by temporary contraband watches under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary of the Judgment

By summary order, the Second Circuit:

Held that prison officials did not abuse their discretion under Rule 37 by eliciting testimony from Dr. Ott, the inmate’s treating physician, despite not naming him originally in disclosures.
Affirmed that Johnson failed to show the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation—deliberate indifference—because officials acted on credible x-ray evidence, monitored his health daily, and ended the watch promptly once the foreign object passed.
Rejected Johnson’s First Amendment retaliation claims arising from misbehavior reports, finding no protected conduct causally linked to the disciplinary actions.
Determined that a 61-day contraband watch did not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, especially given the lack of evidence that Elmira’s process was more onerous than other routine measures.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001): Established the two-part test (objective and subjective) for Eighth Amendment claims.
Walker v. Schult, 45 F.4th 598 (2d Cir. 2022): Reaffirmed the objective and subjective elements.
Trammell v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2003): Emphasized deference to prison administrators and the subjective “deliberate indifference” standard.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979): Recognized deference to prison policies necessary for order and discipline.
Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003): Highlighted the need for non-conclusory allegations in retaliation claims.
Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009) & Wright v. Coughlin, 132 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1998): Defined the Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest inquiry for disciplinary segregation.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied well-established frameworks de novo and found no genuine factual dispute:

Eighth Amendment — The objective prong “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” was not seriously at issue. On the subjective prong, officials acted on x-ray evidence and implemented continuous health monitoring, including a liquid diet prescribed by medical staff. Johnson’s refusals to cooperate prolonged the measures. The Court found no deliberate indifference.
First Amendment — To survive summary judgment, Johnson needed proof of protected conduct, adverse action, and causation. His misbehavior reports stemmed from refusal to comply with staff and disruptive behavior, not from protected speech or protest. His conclusory allegations failed to create a causal nexus.
Fourteenth Amendment — A 61-day contraband watch is under the 101-day threshold generally requiring procedural due process. Johnson offered no evidence that Elmira’s contraband-watch conditions were “atypical and significant.” He waived any novel argument by failing to timely object at the magistrate stage.

3. Impact on Future Cases

This decision clarifies and reaffirms several points:

Prison officials may rely on credible medical imaging and professional judgments to impose safety measures, provided they monitor inmate health diligently.
Summary orders—though non-precedential—underscore that conclusory claims of retaliation or indifference will not survive summary judgment without evidentiary support.
Temporary confinement like contraband watches, if under approximately 100 days and similar to routine measures, do not trigger Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deliberate Indifference: A prison official must know of and disregard a serious risk to inmate health or safety. It is not enough that a measure causes discomfort—officials must actually have been consciously aware of and indifferent to the risk.

Protected Prison Speech vs. Retaliation: General complaints or frustration do not automatically become protected speech in prison. To claim retaliation, an inmate must show (1) a communication on a matter of public concern or a grievance, (2) an adverse action, and (3) a direct link between the two.

Atypical and Significant Hardship: Not every restrictive measure gives rise to due-process rights. Only those that are markedly harsher than normal prison life or that extend confinement beyond routine terms warrant additional procedural protections.

Conclusion

Johnson v. Chappius affirms that prison safety measures grounded in professional medical judgment and monitored with reasonable care do not violate the Eighth Amendment absent evidence of deliberate indifference. It reiterates the high bar for prison-retaliation claims under the First Amendment and confirms that contraband watches of limited duration do not implicate a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision offers clear guidance to prison administrators and litigants alike on the constitutional boundaries of contraband-watch procedures.