Ayodele v. Hudgens, Civil Action 1:19cv183
| Decision Date | 29 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 1:19cv183 |
| Parties | QUADIRI AYODELE, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN HUDGENS; AUSA FLOWERS; A.W. MESSER; SIS[1] VANDEVENDER; and SIS ALDRIDGE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was initially filed on September 18, 2019 by the pro se Plaintiff, an inmate at FCI Gilmer in Glenville, West Virginia, as a § 2241 habeas action. During a preliminary review of the case, it was discovered that this case had been improperly opened as a § 2241 action because it was actually raising civil rights claims. Accordingly, by Order entered September 23, 2019, the Clerk was directed to correct the nature of suit and cause of action to reflect that it was a Bivens[2]action, and send the Plaintiff a Notice of Deficient Pleading (“Notice”) and the Court-approved forms for filing a Bivens action in this district. ECF No. 5. The Notice advised Plaintiff that he had twenty-one days, or until October 14, 2019, in which to correct his deficient pleadings or risk dismissal of his case. ECF No. 6. By Order entered October 24, 2019, Plaintiff was directed to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 9. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff moved to hold the case in abeyance. ECF No. 11. By Order entered November 6, 2019, Plaintiff's motion for abeyance was construed as a motion for extension of time and granted. ECF No. 13. On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Court-approved form complaint, motion to proceed as a pauper and supporting documents. ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18. On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. ECF No. 19. By Order entered December 11, 2019, Plaintiff's second motion to proceed as a pauper was granted and the first was terminated; Plaintiff was permitted to proceed without payment of an initial partial filing fee, although he was assessed the entire fee. ECF No. 20. By separate Order entered the same day, Plaintiff's motion to amend was granted. ECF No. 21. On January 10, 2020, by separate motions, Plaintiff moved for appointed counsel and for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, seeking to be released from the Special Housing Unit[3] (“SHU”). ECF Nos. 23, 24. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on January 13, 2020. ECF No. 25. By Order entered March 5, 2020, Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel was denied. ECF No. 28.
On March 5, 2020, the undersigned conducted a preliminary review of the file, determined that summary dismissal was not appropriate at that time, and directed the defendants to answer the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 29.
On March 9, 2020, a Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order be denied. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff filed objections on March 26, 2020. ECF No. 41.
On April 30, 2020, Defendants moved for an extension of time and consolidated response date; by Order entered May 5, 2020, the motion was granted. ECF Nos. 42, 43. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed another motion for appointed counsel; by Order entered July 10, 2020, the motion was denied. ECF Nos. 51, 52. On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment with a Memorandum in Support and exhibits. ECF Nos. 54, 55. Because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se, on August 4, 2020, a Roseboro Notice was issued. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff moved for an extension of time; by Order entered August 25, 2020, the extension was granted. ECF Nos. 60, 61. On October 1, 2020, an Order Adopting Report and Recommendation was entered, denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 64.
On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. ECF No. 66. On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter motion to hold the case in abeyance until the criminal case pending against him in this Court[4] is concluded. ECF No. 70.
This case is before the undersigned for review, report and recommendation pursuant to LR PL P 2.
Beginning in March, 2019, FCI Gilmer SIS staff observed suspicious emails being exchanged between an inmate at FCI Gilmer and his female visitor; on April 4, 2019, Plaintiff placed a call to a male individual directing him to call a female within the next two days, and providing him with a phone number at which to reach her. See Incident Report No. 3245953, ECF No. 55-1 at 21. Plaintiff apparently switched back and forth between English and (possibly) Swahili during the conversation, but was heard to refer to balloons and visiting. Id. Based upon this and other evidence, Ayodele and the other inmate were suspected of being involved in a scheme to encourage a female visitor to bring drugs in to FCI Gilmer. See Spearen Decl., ECF No. 55-1, ¶ 4 at 2; see also Incident Report No. 3245953, ECF No. 55-1 at 21. Ultimately, two days after Plaintiff placed the call, on April 6, 2019, the female visitor arrived at the prison with one-hundred thirty (130) suboxone strips hidden in balloons inside her body. See Incident Report No. 3245953, ECF No. 55-1 at 22. FCI Gilmer staff confronted her; she admitted to bringing in contraband, agreed to give it to staff, and when escorted by female officers to a private rest room, removed two balloons containing suboxone from her body, suboxone which had a street value of $650, but which was worth $19, 500 inside a prison. Id.
FCI Gilmer staff assigned Ayodele and the other inmate to the SHU[5] the same day that the suboxone was discovered. See Spearen Decl., ECF No. 55-1, ¶ 4 at 2; see also BOP Program Statement (“P.S.”) 5270.11, Special Housing Units, ECF No. 55-1 at 13 - 19); 28 C.F.R. § 541.21.
FCI Gilmer staff referred the allegations against Ayodele and his fellow prisoner to federal authorities for possible criminal prosecution. See Spearen Decl., ¶ 8 at 3; see also Declaration of Brandon Flowers, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia (“Flowers Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 55-2 at 2. Counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff on the potential criminal charges. See Flower Decl., ¶ 4 at 2.
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff impliedly alleges a Fifth Amendment due process violation [ECF No. 25 at 7], an implied violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment [id. at 8], and a general allegation that his “rights under the Constitution were violated [id. at 9], contending that for the 9 months since April 6, 2019, all of the Defendants engaged in a scheme to help AUSA Flowers coerce a conviction from him on false charges, in order to “look tough on drugs.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he has been held in the SHU in a 12'x18' cell for 23 ½ hours a day, in hopes that he will sign a plea agreement admitting to charges he denies: “attempting to introduce narcotics.” ECF No. 25 at 7 - 8. Plaintiff contends that the defendants have lied about him and conducted an unfounded “paltry yet vindictive investigation” into his role in drug smuggling in the prison. Id. at 8 - 9. He avers that both of his co-defendants will attest to his non-involvement in their drug-smuggling scheme. Id. at 3, 4.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Warden Hudgins is culpable for his lack of oversight into the investigation and his failure to permit Plaintiff to have certain amenities denied while in the SHU. ECF No. 25-1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Messer, as Associate Warden, through “chain of command” personally “falsely corroborated” the allegations against Plaintiff and failed to do his job by investigating the charges before handing them off to the Warden and from there, to AUSA Flowers. ECF No. 25 at 3. Plaintiff contends that SIS Vandevender and Aldridge conducted a shoddy investigation, jumped to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, lied, and signed off on reports based on reckless and unsubstantiated claims that were submitted to the “chain of command.” ECF No. 25-1 at 4.
Plaintiff also raises numerous conditions of confinement claims associated with his SHU confinement. Id. at 7 - 8. He alleges that after nine months, federal charges still have not been brought against him. Id. at 9. He further alleges that his prolonged SHU incarceration has caused him to develop a variety of medical ailments, including an intractable foot fungus, a nail fungus, diminished eyesight, and mental stress. Id.
Plaintiff contends that he exhausted his administrative remedies. Id. at 4 - 6.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of immediate release from the SHU; a declaration that his rights have been violated; and a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the defendants to either move forward with their charges or release him back to the general population; and compensatory damages of $50, 000.00 against each defendant jointly and severally, along with punitive damages in the amount of $50, 000.00 against each defendant, costs, and a jury trial. Id. at 9.
Attached to Plaintiff's complaint are a memorandum in support [ECF No. 25-1]; copies of grievances and responses [ECF No. 25-2 at 3 - 6]; a copy of a July 29, 2019 letter from the Clerk of Court to Plaintiff [id. at 7]; a copy of what appears to be a summary of evidence of the incident Plaintiff is charged with, including transcripts of telephone conversations [id. at 8 - 9]; a copy of a December 1, 2019 letter from “P. Duffield, Trust Fund Specialist” to Plaintiff, advising that his account was frozen due to an SIS investigation [id. at 10]; a copy of an FCI Gilmer sick call triage form [id. at 11];...
To continue reading
Request your trial