Brown v. The GEO Grp.
| Decision Date | 18 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18-80026-CV-ROSENBERG |
| Parties | KRIS K. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Geo Group Inc.'s (“GEO Group”), Warden Don Stine's (“Warden Stine”) and Correctional Officer Oscar White's (“Officer White”) Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 123], and accompanying Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 122]. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Statement of Facts in Opposition [ECF No. 187] and an Amended Memorandum of Law in Opposition [ECF No. 184], and Defendants have filed an Amended Reply [ECF No. 193].
The matter is now ripe for review and has been referred to the Undersigned for consideration and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 2019-2. [ECF No. 22]. After carefully considering the pleadings and the record in this case, for the reasons set forth below, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 123] be GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal claims, and that Plaintiff's state law claims be DISMISSED without prejudice to his pursuing them in state court.
On August 1, 2015, Plaintiff Kris Brown was attacked by several inmates while in recreation yard #2 at South Bay Correctional Facility (“SBCF”). He filed a complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Defendants and additional claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. [See Third Amend. Compl., ECF No. 57].[1]Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person “of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”
Prior to this summary judgment motion, the Court granted and denied in part Defendants' motions to dismiss. See [Report, Oct. 20, 2020, ECF No. 96]; [Order Adopting, Jan. 29, 2021, ECF No. 113]. What remains is Plaintiff's: (A) § 1983 claim for Deliberate Indifference to his safety and protection under the Eighth Amendment against Correctional Officer White, in his individual capacity, Warden Stine, in his individual and official capacity, and GEO Group, the private contractor operating SBCF (Count II); (B) § 1983 claim for Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against GEO Group (Count III); and (C) state law claims for Negligence (Count I) and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count II) against all Defendants. See [ECF Nos. 96; 112]. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all remaining counts. See [ECF No. 123].
In Brown's complaint, he described the series of events that led to the attack. [ECF No. 57]. The incident started with homophobic comments made to him by an inmate while he and other inmates were seated on the bleachers in a prison recreation yard watching others play basketball. [Id.]. The comments escalated into a fight where Brown was attacked, sustaining several puncture wounds to his face, a fractured eye socket, and abrasions. [Id. at 5]. He did not know the name of his assailants until prison authorities later showed him a photo array. [ECF No. 185-8, ¶ 5]. Brown describes an attack that was unprovoked, unfolded rapidly, and occurred with little warning.
Defendants correctly note that Plaintiff's Amended Statement in Opposition to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts in Support of their Motions for Summary Judgment (“Amended Facts in Opposition”) violates S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 56.1(b)(1)(A), and that Plaintiff's Amended Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Summary Judgment (“Amended Response”) violates S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(c)(2). [ECF No. 193 at 2]. On July 21, 2021, the Court struck Plaintiff's Declaration from his Attorney, Jane Becker, Notice of Filing, and exhibits for failure to comply with the Local Rules and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to re-file his facts in opposition and memorandum of law to comply with the Local Rules. [Order, July 21, 2021, ECF No. 176].
Nevertheless, Plaintiff's amended pleadings once again do not comply with the Local Rules. S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 56.1(b)(1)(A) requires that all Statement of Material Facts, whether filed by the movant or opponent, shall not exceed ten pages, and S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(c)(2) requires that all opposing memoranda of law not exceed twenty pages. Plaintiff's Amended Facts in Opposition is thirty-one pages, and the Amended Response is thirty-seven pages. [ECF No. 193 at 2]. Further, Plaintiff uses his Amended Facts in Opposition to incorporate additional argument in support of his Amended Response.
Defendants request that the Court strike any portion of Plaintiff's pleadings that fails to comply with the Local Rules, deem Defendants' statements admitted or disputed, or grant relief in their favor. [ECF No. 193 at 3]. The Local Rules certainly provide support for that remedy. See S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 56.1(d). The Court has considered Defendants' request; however, given the serious nature of Plaintiff's claims and the extensive work done by both parties in researching and arguing this case, the Undersigned will consider Plaintiff's pleadings in their entirety and conduct a thorough legal analysis to resolve this case on the merits.
A review of Defendants' Statement of Material Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants Statement of Facts”) [ECF No. 122] and Plaintiff's Amended Facts in Opposition [ECF No. 187], establish that the following facts are undisputed.
SBCF is operated by GEO Group, pursuant to a contract with the Florida Department of Management Services (“FDMS”). [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 2; 187 ¶ 2]; [Hamilton Aff. ¶ 4, Aug. 12, 2020, ECF No. 122-1].[2] Under GEO Group's contract with FDMS, GEO Group must comply with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”). [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 3; 187 ¶ 3]; [Hamilton Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 122-1]. One of the requirements under the contract is proper staffing of the recreation yard. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 4; 187 ¶ 4]; [Hamilton Aff. ¶ 5, ECF No. 122-1]. There is a full-time contract monitor from FDMS stationed at SBCF and violations of the contract may result in fines and other penalties. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 4; 187 ¶ 4]; [Hamilton Aff. ¶ 6, ECF No. 122-1]. A copy of the contract between GEO Group and FDMS has been attached to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 5; 187 ¶ 5]; [Service Contract, July 1, 2009, ECF Nos. 122-2, 122-3, 122-4].
As to the incident at issue, Plaintiff, an inmate at SBCF, was assaulted by other inmates while in the recreation yard on August 1, 2015, at approximately 3:00 p.m. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶¶ 1, 8; 187 ¶¶ 1, 8]. Warden Stine was not working at SBCF on the date of the incident.[3] [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 9, 187 ¶ 9]; [Stine Dep. 35:20-24, Aug. 6, 2020, ECF No. 122-7]. Instead, Classifications Supervisor Willie Haslem (“Supervisor Haslem”), who is not a defendant, was the duty warden at SBCF on the date of the incident. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 10; 187 ¶ 10]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 4, Aug. 12, 2020, ECF No. 122-6]. Part of Supervisor Haslem's responsibilities included submitting a duty warden log to Warden Stine, which informed Warden Stine of any significant events that occurred while he was not present. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 11; 187 ¶ 11]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 6, ECF No. 122-6]. A copy of the duty warden log was produced during Warden Stine's deposition and is attached as an exhibit. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶¶ 11-12, 187 ¶¶ 11-12]; [Duty Warden Log, Aug. 3, 2015, ECF No. 122-8].
At SBCF, there are two separate recreation yards and Plaintiff was assaulted in recreation yard #2. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 13; 187 ¶ 13]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 7, ECF No. 122-6]. There are four dormitories assigned to recreation yard #2, and these dormitories house a total of approximately 800 inmates. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 14, 187 ¶ 14]; [White Dep. 20:9-14, Aug. 6, 2020, ECF No. 122-9]. Inmates are not required to participate in recreation. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 15; 187 ¶ 15]; [White Dep. 19:1-23, ECF No. 122-9].
Officer White was a correctional officer on duty in recreation yard #2 at the time of the incident, but has no recollection of Plaintiff nor the incident, and is no longer employed at SBCF. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 21; 187 ¶ 21]; [White Dep. 15:16-16:1, ECF No. 122-9]. Plaintiff's incident report indicates that after the assault, while conducting a security check of recreation yard #2, Officer White observed Plaintiff injured on the ground.[4] [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 22, 187 ¶ 22]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 122-6]; [Pl.'s MINS Incident Report, Aug. 1, 2015, ECF No. 122-12 at 2]. Plaintiff was taken to the medical department, who determined that Plaintiff needed outside medical treatment. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 25, 187 ¶ 25]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 12, ECF No. 122-6]; [Pl.s' MINS Incident Report, ECF No. 122-12 at 2].
By August 2, 2015, SBCF investigators identified three suspects in Plaintiff's assault, John Wooden, Terrill Alexander and Devonte Byrd. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶ 27; 187 ¶ 27]; [Haslem Aff. ¶ 14, ECF No. 122-6]; [Duty Warden Log, ECF No. 122-8 at 11-13]. Supervisor Haslem wrote three memoranda to Warden Stine on August 2, 2015, describing the backgrounds of each of these inmates. [Id.]. They were placed in administrative confinement. [Id.]. On August 4, 2015, GEO Group referred its investigation to the Officer of Inspector General (“OIG), which is a state organization separate from GEO Group and has its own employees. [ECF Nos. 122 ¶¶ 28, 29; 187 ¶¶ 28, 29]; [Hamilton Aff. ¶ 9, ECF No. 122-1]; [OIG Report, Aug. 5, 2015, ECF No. 122-13 at 1]. The OIG case was assigned to Inspector Nelson Rios, who is not a GEO Group...
To continue reading
Request your trial