Freeland v. Ballard

• Decision Date: 13 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2:12–CV–08712.,2:12–CV–08712.
• Citation: 6 F.Supp.3d 683
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Parties: Eli Wayne FREELAND, Plaintiff, v. David BALLARD, et al., Defendants.

6 F.Supp.3d 683

Eli Wayne FREELAND, Plaintiff,

v.David BALLARD, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:12–CV–08712.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia.

Signed March 13, 2014.

Eli Wayne Freeland, Mt. Olive, WV, pro se.

James W. Marshall, III, John P. Fuller, Bailey & Wyant, Charleston, WV, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 16]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Complaint, which was filed on December 10, 2012, alleges that his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment was violated by Defendant prison officials. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious security breaches, and failed to protect Plaintiff from a substantial risk of serious harm from another inmate who escaped from his segregation cell and attacked Plaintiff with a piece of metal while Plaintiff, who was unattended by staff, was chained to the wall to engage in a telephone call. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, at approximately 3:15 p.m. on September 27, 2012, while housed on the Quilliams II segregation unit at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex (“MOCC”), Plaintiff was escorted out of his cell by Sergeant Jeff Hilewitz and Corporal Daniel Hahn in order to make a telephone call. Plaintiff alleges that he was handcuffed, shackled, and then chained to the wall next to the telephone. The officers then left the pod. (ECF 1 at 9, ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff further alleges that, as soon as the officers left the pod, inmate Joe Howard began kicking and beating his cell door, and continued to do so for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. Although the beating caused loud, explosive sounds, no staff responded to investigate. ( Id. at 9–10, ¶¶ 11–12.) Plaintiff alleges that Howard's door then flew open, and Howard came out of his cell carrying the iron post from his cell stool, which he had somehow unbolted from the floor. ( Id. at 10, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that staff had not searched Howard's cell for months. ( Id. at 10, 14, ¶¶ 12, 34.)

Plaintiff further alleges that, although other inmates who witnessed Howard exit his cell with the post began to kick their doors and scream to get the attention of staff, no one came into the pod. ( Id., ¶¶ 13, 15.) Plaintiff was beaten by Howard with the iron post, and alleges that he received injuries including head trauma, hearing loss in his left ear, a separated left shoulder, and injuries to his right arm and both hands. ( Id., ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Correctional Officer Michael Bunch was in the Control Tower and had a clear view of this entire incident, as well as notice that inmate Howard's door was unsecure, but he did nothing. ( Id. at 10–11, ¶¶ 15, 22.) Plaintiff further alleges that Sergeant Jeff Hilewitz, Corporal Brian Fernandez, Officer Elliott (who is not named as a Defendant herein) and Corporal Daniel Hahn stood outside the pod door and watched the entire incident, doing nothing and saying nothing. ( Id., ¶ 16.) Ultimately, Howard stopped beating Plaintiff and returned to his cell. ( Id. at 11, ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to reasonably respond to a danger which they knew of and disregarded. ( Id., ¶ 20.) Plaintiff further alleges that:

It was entirely reckless for Defendants to handcuff, shackle then chain me to the wall just to use the telephone then just stand there during the assault. There was no security need to restrain me in such an excessive manner, this is proven by the fact that after I was assaulted, the guards began to allow me out of my cell to walk about the pod.

( Id. at 12, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants' conduct was unreasonable and evinced deliberate indifference. ( Id., ¶¶ 23, 26.)

Plaintiff further claims that Defendants had prior specific knowledge that an inmate could beat his door until it came open, because, approximately three months prior, on June 18, 2012, an inmate named Christopher Cox beat his door until it opened, and Cox exited his cell and assaulted a janitor who was cleaning the day room shower. ( Id. at 12–13, ¶ 28.) Plaintiff also alleges that inmate Cox beat another inmate to death on the recreation yard of the segregation unit. ( Id.) Significantly, however, Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege that, prior to this incident, he had advised staff of any problems between himself and inmate Howard.

Plaintiff claims that there is a clear pattern of reckless disregard for security on the MOCC segregation units, resulting in damage to cell doors and inmate assaults, and that Defendants have done nothing to prevent it from happening again. ( Id. at 13, ¶¶ 30, 31.) Plaintiff further alleges that, despite having specific knowledge that prolonged beating on a cell door will result in the door opening, Defendants either have not implemented any procedures requiring a rapid response for investigation of unsecure doors, or failed to follow such policies or procedures on September 27, 2012. ( Id., ¶¶ 32, 33.)

Plaintiff further alleges that he filed grievances concerning these issues, but they were denied by Captain Matheny, and those denials were upheld by Warden David Ballard and Commissioner Jim Rubenstein. Plaintiff has attached those grievances to his Complaint. (ECF No. 1, Exs. 1–4.)

Plaintiff's first grievance was filed on September 28, 2012, the day after this incident. The grievance claimed deliberate indifference to his safety and described the incident in a manner similar to the facts alleged in his Complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 15, ¶ 42 and Ex. 1.) Captain Matheny responded to Plaintiff's first grievance by stating “staff cannot be held responsible for cell doors being beat open. Also, the staff can enter the pod only when it is safe to do so. I cannot grant your grievance at this level.” ( Id. at 15, ¶ 43, and Ex. 1.) Captain Matheny's response was affirmed without comment by both Warden Ballard and Commissioner Rubenstein. ( Id. at 15, ¶ 44 and Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff filed a second grievance concerning this incident on September 30, 2012, alleging that he had been denied recreation on the date of the incident followingan argument with a correctional officer, but the correctional officer allowed him to make the phone call that placed him in the dayroom at the time he was attacked by Howard. Plaintiff challenged the conduct of the correctional officers chaining him to the wall and then watching the attack. ( Id. at 15, ¶ 45 and Ex. 2.) Captain Matheny also responded to the second grievance stating, “Mr. Freeland, you being placed on the phone and another I/M escaping he cell and attacking you has nothing to do with each other.” ( Id., at 15–16, ¶ 46 and Ex. 2.) The denial of this grievance was also affirmed on appeal without comment by Warden Ballard and Commissioner Rubenstein. ( Id. at 16, ¶ 47 and Ex. 2.)

On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third grievance concerning the staff's alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety by allowing inmate Howard to beat his door for ten to fifteen minutes without response, and failing to take any action when Howard's door became unsecure. ( Id. at 16, ¶ 48 and Ex. 3.) Captain Matheny responded to this grievance by stating, “It has not been confirmed that he beat his door for 10–15 minutes. Also staff could have been busy dealing with someone else beating their door or some other type of emergency.” ( Id. at 16, ¶ 49 and Ex. 3.) As noted by Plaintiff, the denial of this grievance was also upheld on appeal without comment by Warden Ballard and Commissioner Rubenstein. ( Id. at 16, ¶ 50 and Ex. 3.)

Plaintiff further alleges that he has been denied appropriate medical treatment following this incident. However, Plaintiff has not specifically named any medical providers as Defendants herein. On October 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a fourth grievance concerning his medical treatment following the September 27, 2012 incident. Plaintiff claimed that, although he was examined by Dr. Phillip Shoaf, he did nothing and said Plaintiff was fine. ( Id. at 16–17, ¶ 51 and Ex. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered hearing loss in his left ear, and that “Dr. Shoaf was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's health.” ( Id.) As the unit manager, Captain Matheny signed off on this grievance, but he had Anna Kincaid, R.N., provide a written response. The response states, “10/9/12—The physician will be seeing you for follow-up in a few weeks. At this time, his evaluation determined that you do not need a referral to a specialist at this time.” ( Id. at 17, ¶ 52 and Ex. 4.) Warden Ballard and Commissioner Rubenstein upheld this grievance without comment as well. ( Id. at 17, ¶ 53 and Ex. 4.)

With his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed the affidavits of nine other inmates who were in Pod 5 of the Quilliams 2 unit at the time of inmate Howard's assault of Plaintiff. ( Id., Exs. 5–13.) The Affidavit of Charles Lively indicates that, while Lively was working as a janitor in the pod, he noticed that the seat on the stool in inmate Howard's cell had been removed and was replaced with what appeared to be a folded up blanket. (ECF No. 1 at 14, ¶ 35 and Ex. 5.) Lively further indicates that only one bolt still held the stool to the floor, and that the stool had been in that condition for some time. ( Id.) Lively further states that he told Howard that he would report the condition of the stool to the staff so that maintenance could fix it, but Howard told him that they already knew about it. ( Id.) The other eight affidavits provide statements from other inmates in the pod who witnessed Howard beating his door, the attack on Plaintiff, and the conduct of Defendants during that time. ( Id., Exs. 6–13.)

On April 18, 2013, subsequent to the filing of Defendants' ...