Berger v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 16 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-97-MMH-JBT |
| Parties | JACKIE S. BERGER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN GODWIN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
JACKIE S. BERGER, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN GODWIN, et al., Defendants.
No. 3:21-cv-97-MMH-JBT
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
March 16, 2022
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. Status
Plaintiff Jackie S. Berger, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action on January 18, 2021, [1] by filing a pro se Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1, Complaint). As Defendants, Berger names Assistant Warden John Godwin, Assistant Warden B. Allen, Colonel G.H. Waldron, Regional Director John Palmer, Warden C.E. Lane, Assistant Regional Director T.J. Anderson, Officer M. Henck, and Dr. F. Cruz-Vera (“Defendants”). Each Defendant is an employee of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) or one of its contractors. In the Complaint, Berger sues Defendants for violating his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights …
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Berger raises federal constitutional claims of retaliation, the use of excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. He also asserts state law claims of assault, battery, and negligence. As relief, Berger seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
All Defendants have filed motions seeking dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that Berger failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Allen, Lane, and Henck's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18); Palmer and Godwin's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34); Anderson's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40); Cruz-Vera's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47); Waldron's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 64).[2] Berger filed responses opposing the Motions to Dismiss. Response to Allen, Lane, and Henck's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42); Response to Palmer, Godwin, and Anderson's Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 52); Response to Cruz-Vera's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 65); Response to Waldron's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 70). Because Defendants did not request leave to file a reply, the Motions to Dismiss are ripe for review.
II. Berger's Allegations[3]
In October 2020, Berger was a close management inmate confined at Suwannee Correctional Institution (Suwannee CI). On October 8, 2020, he filed an informal grievance about unsanitary conditions and mold on the food trays, which he contended had caused a recent “mass infection” and food poisoning. Complaint ¶¶ 1-2, 6.[4] Berger blamed the unsanitary conditions on Warden Lane's deliberate indifference to inmate safety. See id. ¶ 2. A lieutenant “approved” the informal grievance, id. ¶ 3, but a few days later, Berger filed a formal grievance (Number 2010-230-052) because there had been no improvement regarding the moldy food trays and there continued to be a lack of cleaning supplies, id. ¶ 4. Berger asserts that he got a receipt for the formal grievance but no response. Id.[5]
Around 9:00 a.m. on October 20, 2020, two officers escorted Berger to the classification building for an interview with Warden Lane and the institutional classification team. Id. ¶ 7. There, he was placed in “full restraint devices (handcuffs/leg irons).” Id. While Berger was seated in the lobby, Officer Henck
appeared and said something to Berger which suggested that Lane was hostile to inmate grievances. Id. ¶ 8. Lane then entered the lobby and told Berger he had “zero tolerance for writ writer's [sic] who think they [are] above and beyond my system.” Id. ¶ 9.[6] Lane stated that he was surprised Berger had named him in three or four of his recent grievances, and said, “Let's go talk about them in the back office.” Id. Berger, who interpreted Lane's statements as a threat of corporal punishment, told a nearby female officer he wanted to refuse the interview because he was in fear for his life. Id. ¶ 10. The female officer told Berger not to talk to her. Id. Lane then turned to Berger and said: “Berger you don't demand nothing. I summoned you for [an] interview. When I say you finished is when you finished and only then boy [sic]. Matter [of] fact go stand outside until your name [is] called. Berger do you hear me[?]” Id. ¶ 11. Berger states that “[f]rom the tone implied by Warden Lane, I decided it's of my best interest to remain quiet as not to provoke Mr. Lane's fury as he has [a] widely known reputation to have inmates beat” for “sport.” Id. ¶ 12.
After a few tense exchanges with Lane, Henck, and some other officers, id. ¶¶ 13-18, Berger was escorted into Lane's office, where he met Lane, Assistant Warden Godwin, Assistant Warden Allen, Regional Director Palmer, Assistant Regional Director Anderson, Colonel Waldron, and an unknown
female classification officer, id. ¶ 19. Godwin directed Berger to “stand over here and don't open your mouth nor blink your eyes unless told to do so.” Id. ¶ 20. Palmer stated, “Mr. Lane you have my full support to do as you see fit - unabated. This situation involving these grievances disturb [sic] me in the worst way and frankly this needs to be nipped in the [bud]. Immediately.” Id. ¶ 21. Lane proceeded to confront Berger about the two recent grievances blaming Lane for the unsanitary living conditions and food poisoning. Id. ¶ 22. Berger did not respond because he felt uneasy about the line of questioning, id. ¶ 24, prompting Godwin to reach behind him to remove a jar from a shelf and say, “Berger if you don't answer the boss your teeth will be in my glass jar with the rest, ” id. ¶ 25.
According to Berger, as he lifted his head to answer, Godwin grabbed him by the throat. Id. ¶ 26. Berger, who was still in full restraints, id., says he reflexively “ducked [his] chin” to prevent Godwin from gaining a complete chokehold around his neck, id. ¶ 29. Godwin's “choke hold” left Berger unable to breathe, so he shook his head from left to right to show he was not resisting. Id. ¶ 30. Then, Allen and Waldron grabbed Berger from behind and flung him across the room, causing Berger to slam into a desk, striking his groin and chest area. Id. ¶ 31. At this point Lane declared, “Berger[, ] consider your grievance and appeal denied.” Id. ¶ 33. As he did so, Lane “plac[ed] the
grievance (230-2010-0077) and [formal grievance] (2010-230-052) in [a] paper shredder behind the desk which completely destroyed the documents.” Id.
After Lane shredded the grievances, Berger alleges that Palmer “came from around the desk [and] grabbed [him] by the chin[, ] snapping [his] neck/head painfully back unnaturally.” Id. ¶ 34. Doing so, Palmer said:
Berger have you ever been to Vegas? Well like Vegas what happens in this office stays in this office. If not I will most definitely continue you on close management and have your black ass bent and shipped to FSP so fast your head will spin. That's if my officers leave you with a head.
Id. And Lane allegedly said:
Berger I don't like seeing you this way but if I let you get away with this nonsense how many more will follow you[?] So you've got to understand my position but take my advice. You drop the grievances and I will see to it [you're] left alone. If not this (beating) will be a reoccurring theme[, ] believe me.
Id. ¶ 35. According to Berger, Lane and Palmer “followed through on their threats of reprisal and retaliation as [he] was continued on close management as corporal punishment to deter free speech (grievances).” Id. ¶ 36. Berger also asserts that “when [an] investigation was initiated in the matter, ” his “assigned classification officer recommended ‘release to open population based on positive behavior adjustment, '” which Berger believes is more proof of a retaliatory motive for him being placed in close management. Id.
Based on what happened in Lane's office, Berger asserts that Lane, Godwin, Allen, Palmer, Waldron, Anderson, and Henck retaliated against him for filing grievances, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment. See
id. ¶ 50. He also contends that Godwin, Allen, Waldron, and Palmer used excessive force, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, id. ¶ 51, and committed assault and battery in violation of state law, id. ¶¶ 51, 55.[7] Additionally, Berger asserts that Lane, Palmer, and Anderson failed to intervene, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. ¶¶ 37-38, 52. Specifically, he alleges that Lane, Palmer, and Anderson could have intervened during the “unprovoked beating, ” but they deliberately failed to do so. Id. ¶ 37.
Berger also asserts a claim that Lane, Anderson, Palmer, Godwin, Allen, Waldron, and Henck were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Id. ¶¶ 39-42, 53. Berger says that when he returned to the lobby, two officers noticed he was in pain and offered to notify the medical department, and that he declared a medical emergency based on the pain in his neck, chest, and groin area. Id. ¶¶ 39-42. According to Berger, Henck volunteered to call medical and to send a nurse to meet Berger at the dorm, but no nurse saw Berger that day to conduct a post-use-of-force exam. Id. ¶ 41. As a result, Berger contends he
“was denied access to medical personnel capable of treating [his] pain, ” in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. ¶ 42.[8]
With respect to Dr. F. Cruz-Vera, Berger asserts that the doctor was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need because he provided delayed or cursory medical care. Id. at p. 12 & ¶¶ 43, 49. Berger states that on November 9, 2020, he “attended [an] urgent sick call follow up for injuries sustained on Oct. 20, 2020.” Id. p. 12, ¶ 43. According to Berger, Dr. Cruz-Vera said: “Berger this is only [a] courtesy visit as I have gotten several phone calls from Warden Lane and Assistant Director Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial