Background
Eight incarcerated plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Delaware Department of Correction Commissioner Terra Taylor, challenging the Department’s alleged failure to facilitate decontamination after correction officers use oleoresin capsicum, or OC, on prisoners. The plaintiffs did not challenge the initial use of OC. They focused on situations in which a prisoner had become compliant and the area was secure, including strip searches conducted before prisoners could decontaminate their hands.
The plaintiffs alleged that prolonged OC exposure caused intense pain and risked lasting injuries to the eyes, lungs, and skin. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief under Article I, Section 11 of the Delaware Constitution. After the lawsuit began, the Commissioner adopted a written decontamination policy, but the court held that the new policy did not moot the case because disputes remained over its constitutional adequacy. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction barring the Department from using OC until it implemented an effective policy or the court entered a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the preliminary injunction. It found that the plaintiffs had shown a reasonable probability of proving that failure to facilitate decontamination after a prisoner becomes compliant and the area is secure—particularly before a strip search—violates Delaware’s Cruel Punishment Clause. The court held that the state clause has independent meaning beyond the federal Eighth Amendment and adopted a test asking whether a condition creates an objectively significant risk of serious harm and, if so, whether it is reasonably necessary for incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation.
The court also found a threat of irreparable harm from both the likely constitutional violation and the risk of serious health consequences. But the requested injunction failed on the balance of hardships. The Commissioner credibly established that OC was essential to prison security and that eliminating it would force officers to rely on physical restraint, batons, tasers, or other methods posing greater dangers to prisoners and staff.
The merits remain unresolved. The plaintiffs must prove at trial that the absence of secure decontamination violates the Delaware Constitution and that the Department’s new policy is inadequate. Given the importance of the issues, the court ordered the parties to bring the case to trial within 120 days.
Key Takeaways
- Delaware’s Cruel Punishment Clause may provide broader protection than the federal Eighth Amendment and does not require proof of deliberate indifference when plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Failing to facilitate decontamination after a prisoner is compliant and the area is secure is reasonably likely to create an objectively significant risk of serious harm without serving a legitimate Delaware penological purpose.
- A strong showing on the merits and irreparable harm did not justify the broad requested injunction because prohibiting all OC use would likely create greater prison-safety risks.
Why It Matters
The opinion articulates an independent Delaware constitutional framework for evaluating allegedly cruel prison conditions. Under that framework, only incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation—not retribution—can justify a dangerous condition of confinement, and plaintiffs seeking prospective relief need not establish a prison official’s subjective intent.
The ruling also illustrates the limits of preliminary relief: even where plaintiffs are reasonably likely to prove a constitutional violation, a court may reject an injunction whose breadth threatens greater harm. Trial will determine whether Delaware must adopt more specific measures addressing indirect contamination, pre-strip-search decontamination, and officers’ responsibility to facilitate decontamination.