Bailey v. Kauffman
| Decision Date | 02 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-01458 |
| Parties | VANN L. BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
After a Valentine's Day card found among the prison possessions of the plaintiff, Vann L. Bailey, tested positive for the presence of drugs, Bailey was sanctioned with disciplinary custody and his visitation was curtailed. Bailey now seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining prison officials to provide him an opportunity to have the Valentine's Day card retested and to reinstate his visitation rights with his mother. Because Bailey has not met the exacting standard for showing that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Bailey began this action by filing a complaint along with another plaintiff. The parties later consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the case was referred to the undersigned. We severed the claims of the other plaintiff from Bailey's claims. Thus, this case now concerns only Bailey's claims.
On July 2, 2021, Bailey filed a second amended complaint naming the following officials and employees at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (“SCI Huntingdon”) as defendants: (1) Superintendent Kevin Kauffman; (2) Deputy Superintendent B. Brumbaugh; (3) Deputy Superintendent S. Walters; (4) Sergeant Yohn; (5) Corrections Officer Lofferty; and (6) Hearing Examiner S. Ellenberger. Bailey's claims center around misconduct proceedings as to which he contends he was denied the opportunity to prove his actual innocence. Bailey alleges the following facts.
On March 25, 2018, defendant Yohn, without permission from Bailey, searched Bailey's personal property. Doc. 49¶¶ 11-12. Yohn found a Valentine's Day card in Bailey's property. Id. ¶ 12. According to Yohn, after he noticed an “Inked Red[] Line” inside the card, he called another officer, who was directed to conduct a Nark II test on the card. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. The Nark II test purportedly resulted in a positive test for Suboxone. Id. ¶ 13. And as a result, defendant Lofferty issued a misconduct report charging Bailey with possession or use of a dangerous or controlled substance and with possession of contraband. Id. ¶ 14.[1]
At a March 27, 2018[2] disciplinary hearing, Bailey informed defendant Ellenberger, who was serving as the hearing examiner, that there was “information and/or evidence available that he would like to retrieve to prepare and present in his defense that would demonstrate [his] ‘Actual Innocence,' such as the Nark II testing results are inaccurate and utterly unreliable.” Id. ¶ 15. Bailey requested to have the Valentine's Day card retested, and he informed defendant Ellenberger that “based upon additional discovery and recovery, [he] would like to retrieve and obtain signed statements, or, affidavits from other inmates that were exonerated upon receiving a second Nark II test.” Id. ¶ 16.[3] Bailey alleges that he and defendant Ellenberger agreed to postpone the disciplinary hearing to “allow him to retrieve and obtain evidence to demonstrate and establish ‘Actual Innocence.'” Id. ¶ 17.[4]
Two days later-March 29, 2018[5]-Bailey appeared before defendant Ellenberger again for a disciplinary hearing. Id. ¶ 18. According to Bailey, although he had requested to have the Valentine's Day card retested and he asserted that “other similarly situated” inmates had been permitted a second test, defendant Ellenberger denied his request for additional testing and ignored or rejected his evidence of other inmates being exonerated upon receiving a second Nark II test. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Ellenberger stated that he believed the written report of defendant Lofferty over Bailey's presentation, and based on a photo of the Nark II test (“not the actual Nark II report/testing results indicating positive for the presence of suboxone”), Defendant Ellenberger found Bailey guilty of the charged misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Defendant Ellenberger sentenced Bailey to 45 days in disciplinary confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”). Id. ¶ 21. The misconduct sanction also, Bailey alleges, resulted in him losing his visitation rights with his “Elderly Sick Mother.” Id. ¶ 21.[6]
From May 15, 2018, through June 28, 2018, Bailey wrote to defendants Kauffman, Brumbaugh, and Walters requesting to be allowed to have the Valentine's Day card retested at his expense as “other similarly situated” inmates had been exonerated after receiving permission to have a second, or retest, of the Nark II samples. Id. ¶ 22. More specifically, on May 15, 2018, Bailey alleges, he sent a request form to defendant Brumbaugh requesting that Brumbaugh look into or intervene as to the “unfair and unlawful finding of guilt by allowing him to pay” to have the card retested to demonstrate his actual innocence. Id. ¶ 23. Bailey attached a copy of this request and Brumbaugh's response to this request to his second amended complaint as Exhibit D. See doc. 49-1 at 7-8. The body of the request reads:
Now I had written Capt. Stevens he isn't answering my request slips. I understand there is no procedure for outside testing. I had receive[d] 45 days due to a [Valentine's] day card tested positive for suboxones. My family is willing to pay the State Police to test the card to show my actual innocencies [sic][.] My family [is] going [to] contact the state police. I'm going to need the card sent to the state police[.] Will it be a problem? Mother sent me that card 3 years ago.
Id. at 8 (). Brumbaugh responded to Bailey: “We will need to be informed by our legal team before we turn anything over to anyone.” Id.
Then, on May 22, 2018, Bailey sent to defendant Kauffman a request, which according to Bailey, requested that Kauffman also look into or intervene as to his finding of guilt and allow him to pay to have the card retested to demonstrate his actual innocence. Doc. 49 ¶ 24. Bailey attached a copy of this request and Kauffman's response to his second amended complaint as Exhibit E. See doc. 49-1 at 9-10. The body of the request reads:
Now the security dept. need[s] to hold the [Valentine's] day card that was confiscated #C-092698. The security dept. [is] suppose to hold all evidence up to two years. I'm willing to pay a toxicology to test the [Valentine's] day card for drugs.
Id. at 10 (). Kauffman responded to Bailey: “I will ensure the Security Office is aware of your concerns.” Id.
Bailey also appealed defendant Ellenberger's decision to the Program Review Committee. Doc. 49 ¶ 25. According to Bailey, he asked the Program Review Committee to look into or to intervene as to the unfair and unlawful sanction imposed by defendant Ellenberger, and he again asked to have the card retested. Id. ¶¶ 25-26. Bailey attached a copy of what he refers to as his appeal to the Program Review Committee to his second amended complaint as Exhibit F. See doc. 49-1 at 11-12. The body of that document reads:
Id. at 12 ().
The Program Review Committee, which included defendants Walters and Brumbaugh, sustained defendant Ellenberger's decision. Doc. 49 ¶ 26. Bailey attached a copy of the Program Review Committee's decision to his second amended complaint as Exhibit G. See doc. 49-1 at 13-14. The discussion section of the Program Review Committee's decision provides:
Id. at 14 (underlining omitted).
Bailey complains that he was not afforded the opportunity to have the Valentine's Day card retested to establish the inaccuracy of the Nark II test or to establish his actual innocence of the misconduct charges. Doc. 49 ¶ 27. He asserts that “other...
To continue reading
Request your trial