Establishing Standards for §1983 Challenges to Contraband Watch: Deliberate Indifference, Retaliation, and Liberty Interests

Introduction

Johnson v. Chappius is a summary order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 3, 2025. The plaintiff, Christopher Johnson, a state inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, was placed on a sixty-one-day “contraband watch” after radiographs indicated a metallic foreign object in his rectum. Johnson sued various facility officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Johnson appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed, applying well-established standards for summary judgment review, deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, prisoner retaliation under the First Amendment, and due-process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit held:

Eighth Amendment: Defendants did not act with deliberate indifference to Johnson’s health or safety. They relied on x-ray evidence and medical oversight, and terminated the contraband watch once the foreign object had passed.
First Amendment: Johnson failed to show protected speech or a causal link between any such speech and adverse action. His misbehavior reports stemmed from documented disruptive conduct, not his complaints or religious beliefs.
Fourteenth Amendment: Johnson’s claim that contraband watch procedures deprived him of due process was waived because he did not meaningfully object in the district court to the conditions of confinement as “atypical and significant” under Wright v. Coughlin.

The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects, disposing of Johnson’s § 1983 claims on summary judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Qorrolli v. Metropolitan Dental Associates, 124 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2024): Reaffirms that summary judgment is reviewed de novo, construing all evidence in the non-movant’s favor.
Anemone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011): Clarifies the standard for entry of summary judgment, requiring no genuine issue of material fact.
Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006): Explains the district court’s discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to disclose witnesses.
Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001): Sets out the two-part “objective and subjective” test for Eighth Amendment claims by inmates.
Walker v. Schult, 45 F.4th 598 (2d Cir. 2022): Reiterates that the Eighth Amendment requires both a sufficiently serious deprivation and deliberate indifference.
Hayes v. New York City Department of Correction, 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996): Defines “deliberate indifference” as knowledge of, and disregard for, a substantial risk of serious harm.
Trammell v. Keane, 338 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2003): Holds that prisons receive deference in policies adopted to preserve security, and deliberate indifference must be assessed in context.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979): Affirms wide deference to prison administrators in maintaining order and discipline.
Burns v. Martuscello, 890 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018): Defines the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim by a prisoner.
Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003): Warns that prisoner retaliation claims must be supported by non-conclusory allegations to avoid unwarranted intrusion into prison administration.
Slattery v. Hochul, 61 F.4th 278 (2d Cir. 2023): Tests whether conduct qualifies as protected expressive activity.
Zalewska v. County of Sullivan, 316 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2003): Requires that expressive conduct convey a particularized message understood by its audience.
Davis v. Barrett, 576 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2009): Explains that disciplinary confinement under 101 days usually does not trigger a protected liberty interest absent unusually onerous conditions.
Wright v. Coughlin, 132 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 1998): Lays out factors for determining whether disciplinary segregation imposes an “atypical and significant hardship.”
Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112 (2d Cir. 2022): Holds that a party who fails to object specifically to a magistrate judge’s recommended findings waives appellate review.
Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2010): Confirms that issues not raised below are waived on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The panel applied a structured approach:

Summary Judgment Standard: Under Qorrolli and Anemone, the court reviews summary judgment de novo, construing all evidence in favor of Johnson.
Rule 26 and Expert Testimony: Dr. Ott’s testimony, though not explicitly disclosed, fell within the broad description of potential medical witnesses in defendants’ Rule 26 disclosures. Under Design Strategy, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting that testimony.
Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference: Applying Gaston, Walker and Hayes, the court found no evidence that prison officials knowingly disregarded a substantial risk. Security concerns justified the watch; medical staff monitored Johnson closely; and his own refusals prolonged the process.
First Amendment – Retaliation: Under Burns and Bennett, plaintiff must show (1) protected speech, (2) adverse action, (3) causal link. Johnson’s misbehavior reports were supported by undisputed record evidence of belligerent conduct, not protest or religious exercise, and he offered no proof linking his complaints to the reports.
Fourteenth Amendment – Due Process: Under Wright and Davis, a prisoner has no constitutional liberty interest in less than 101 days of disciplinary confinement unless conditions are unusually harsh. Johnson never demonstrated that Elmira’s contraband watch procedures differed materially from standard practice, and he forfeited any arguments on that point by failing to make them in district court (Miller, Wagner).

Impact

Though this is a non-precedential summary order, it reinforces several guiding principles:

Deference to Prison Officials: Security and safety rationales for contraband containment measures will often defeat Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, absent proof of reckless disregard.
Retaliation Claims Require Clear Evidence: Courts will dismiss retaliation claims grounded in misbehavior reports if the record shows legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for disciplinary measures.
Magistrate Objections Matter: Section 1983 plaintiffs must object specifically to magistrate judges’ findings to preserve due-process challenges on appeal.
Limits of Liberty-Interest Claims: Short-term disciplinary confinements—here sixty-one days—rarely trigger a protected liberty interest without evidence of extraordinary conditions.

Future litigants in this Circuit will point to Johnson v. Chappius for its clear application of the established tests and its warnings about waiver.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A ruling before trial when a court finds no real dispute over key facts and one side is entitled to win as a matter of law.
Deliberate Indifference (Eighth Amendment): A prison official’s conscious disregard of a known, serious risk to inmate health or safety.
Retaliation Claim (First Amendment): An inmate must show he spoke or acted in a protected way, that the prison responded with punishment, and that the punishment was because of his protected speech.
Liberty Interest (Fourteenth Amendment): A constitutional interest in freedom from certain punishments or conditions—prisoners rarely have such an interest in short‐term disciplinary confinements.
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation: A proposed decision; parties must file specific objections or risk waiving appellate review.

Conclusion

Johnson v. Chappius reaffirms that standard § 1983 challenges to prison procedures—when based on documented medical oversight, legitimate security concerns, and routine disciplinary processes—will survive only if supported by concrete evidence of unconstitutional intent or condition. The decision underscores the deference owed to prison administrators, the evidentiary rigor demanded for retaliation claims, and the procedural imperative to preserve objections. Although non-precedential, the panel’s methodical application of binding Second Circuit authority provides a clear road map for litigants and district courts handling similar contraband watch disputes.