Beddow v. Rhodes
| Decision Date | 15 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-CV-2442-JAR-TJJ |
| Parties | KATHY V. BEDDOW, Plaintiff, v. JAY RHODES AND J. STREEVAL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Kathy Beddow brings suit against Defendants Jay Rhodes and Jason Streeval in their individual capacities alleging that they violated her Fifth Amendment right to equal protection.1 Plaintiff is disabled, and she visited her son at the United States Penitentiary ("USP") Leavenworth in 2016. The electronic chairlift was inoperable on several occasions, and visitors were sometimes permitted to access the facility through the rear gate or participate in video conference visitation. Plaintiff claims that instead of allowing Plaintiff rear gate access to the facility, she either had to climb the 43 stairs to the front door or leave the facility without seeing her son.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 66). They assert that (1) Plaintiff cannot state a Bivens claim, (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity, (3) Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is moot, and (4) to the extent Plaintiff alleges a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), she fails to state a plausible claim for relief. The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. For thereasons set forth in detail below, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Both Defendants and Plaintiff include attachments to their briefing. Defendants include declarations from both Rhodes and Streeval. Plaintiff attaches several exhibits to her response, including declarations from Plaintiff, Plaintiff's son, and another disabled individual who visited USP Leavenworth in late 2016. The Court considered several of these documents in deciding this motion, and thus the Court construes Defendants' motion as one for summary judgment.2
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 In applying this standard, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.4 "There is no genuine issue of material fact unless the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."5 A fact is "material" if, under the applicable substantive law, it is "essential to the proper disposition of the claim."6 An issueof fact is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party."7
The moving party initially must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.8 Once the movant has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."9 The nonmoving party may not simply rest upon its pleadings to satisfy its burden.10 Rather, the nonmoving party must "set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant."11 To accomplish this, the facts "must be identified by reference to an affidavit, a deposition transcript[,] or a specific exhibit incorporated therein."12 The non-moving party cannot avoid summary judgment by repeating conclusory opinions, allegations unsupported by specific facts, or speculation.13
Finally, summary judgment is not a "disfavored procedural shortcut;" on the contrary, it is an important procedure "designed 'to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.'"14 In responding to a motion for summary judgment, "a party cannot rest onignorance of facts, on speculation, or on suspicion and may not escape summary judgment in the mere hope that something will turn up at trial."15
The following facts are uncontroverted, stipulated to, or viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the nonmoving party.16 Plaintiff brings suit against Jay Rhodes and J. Steeval. Plaintiff's son was incarcerated at USP Leavenworth in 2016. It is a medium-security facility that houses male inmates. Rhodes was the Captain in charge of daily operations at USP Leavenworth in 2016. Specifically, Rhodes served as Captain from December 2014 through February 2017. Steeval was the Associate Warden at USP Leavenworth from November 15, 2015, until April 15, 2018.
Plaintiff suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder ("COPD") and several other medical conditions. She requires an auxiliary aid to assist her in breathing. These conditions qualify her to be designated as handicapped/disabled. The Missouri Department of Motor Vehicles has designated Plaintiff as handicapped for the past several years.
USP Leavenworth offers a general population inmate visitation program. This program allows face-to-face contact visitation on Fridays through Mondays. Visitors are allowed to take pictures, hold hands during the visit, play certain board games and card games, and embrace and kiss at the beginning and end of the visit.
The visitation room in USP Leavenworth is located inside the front entryway of the facility. To obtain access, an individual must walk up 43 stairs. USP Leavenworth also has an electronic chairlift, assisting disabled individuals up the 43 stairs, but it was inoperable duringmost of 2016. The electronic chairlift has a history of being inoperable and was written about in a published book.
Due to the chairlift's inoperability, at times, the captain at USP Leavenworth allowed rear gate access for inmate visitation. The rear gate is on the ground level and does not require climbing stairs. When visitors were allowed rear gate access, staff would escort the visitors through the rear gate from the back of the institution, through the main corridor, to the visiting room located near the front of the facility. During this time, the institution would be placed on lock down status requiring all units to be locked and inmate movement restricted to ensure the safety of visitors, staff, and inmates. This process interrupted the regular operations of the facility and required staff to be diverted from their regular duties to escort visitors.
While escorted through the premises, visitors could see the internal layout of the institution, staffing levels, and staff locations. Inmates could take advantage of the situation. Due to these concerns, different wardens took different stances regarding rear gate access to visitors. Staff were instructed to inform their chain of command when the chairlift was inoperable so the Warden could be apprised of the situation and make a determination regarding rear gate access.
Plaintiff was an approved visitor on her son's visiting list which allowed her to visit him during visiting hours. Plaintiff called to check on the status of the chairlift prior to visiting her son each time. Every time Plaintiff called, she was told it was operational. She alleges that it was inoperable on six different occasions when she arrived. On each occasion Plaintiff requested accommodation, such as rear gate access, she was denied. Plaintiff proceeded inside the facility three different times without the use of the chairlift. On these occasions, she experienced pain and suffering.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's son repeatedly communicated with the Disability Rights Center and the ACLU about the chairlift's inoperability and that reasonable accommodations were not being made for Plaintiff. Plaintiff's son submitted seven informal administrative grievances while in USP Leavenworth alleging that Plaintiff was being discriminated against because she was not allowed rear gate access. Plaintiff states that Rhodes agreed to allow Plaintiff rear gate access on November 24, 2016 if Plaintiff's son agreed to informally resolve and drop the seven grievances.
On November 21, 2016, Rhodes issued a memorandum changing the existing general population inmate visitation procedures for disabled visitors utilizing the electronic chairlift to gain access to USP Leavenworth. The memo allowed disabled visitors to have a no contact video visit, not to exceed two hours when the chairlift was inoperable. On this date, Rhodes told Plaintiff's son that the new video visitation policy applied to him and Plaintiff, and Plaintiff would not be allowed rear gate access on November 24.
Plaintiff visited her son on November 24, 2016, and the electronic chairlift was inoperable. She inquired about the video visitation program, and the BOP staff member stated that she did not know about the program. Plaintiff was told that she could either climb the stairs or go home because she could not obtain rear gate access. Plaintiff climbed the stairs because she wanted to see her son on his birthday. She states that she was in fear of passing out while climbing the stairs and was in pain for several days after the visit.
On or around November 28, 2016, Plaintiff spoke with a local news outlet, Fox 4 News Problem Solvers Department, about the ongoing issues of the inoperable chairlift. Plaintiff, Plaintiff's son, and several other individuals spoke to the news reporter. The segment was aired on December 1, 2016.
On December 2, 2016, the Warden issued an email approving BOP custody staff to work overtime on Saturdays and Sundays to allow rear gate access to the facility. The email also directed staff that they must inform Captain Rhodes prior to any visitor entering the rear gate, and once approved, the visitor would be escorted to and from the rear gate.
From September through November 2016, Plaintiff alleges that two other disabled individuals, Mr. Thornbrugh and Mr. Knunzler,...
To continue reading
Request your trial