Buchanan v. Jumpstart S.C.
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-00385-DCN-SVH |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2022 |
| Parties | STEWART R. BUCHANAN a/k/a DAPHNE RENEE' STEWART, Plaintiff, v. JUMPSTART SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL SCHARFF, DANIEL SULTON, BOB CALDWELL, SHARON MCDOWELL, CHRIS PHILLIPS, CHUCK FIELDS, TOMMY HOLT, MIKE KIRIAKIDES, and CHRIS URBAN, in their official capacities; CASEY SANDERS and TOMMY MOORE, in their official and individual capacities; and DAVID JOHNSON, NFN BEARD, BRYAN STIRLING, LARRY EPPS, CHARLES WILLIAMS, and WILLIE DAVIS, in their individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges's report and recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 102, that the court grant the South Carolina Department of Corrections defendants' (“SCDC defendants”)[1] motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 74; grant the JumpStart defendants'[2] motion for summary judgment ECF No. 75, and deny plaintiff Stewart R. Buchanan a/k/a Daphne Renee' Stewart's (“Buchanan”)[3] motion for summary judgment, ECF No 88. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts in part and rejects in part the R&R.
JumpStart is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization “dedicated to restoring the lives of inmates . . . inside and outside of prison.” ECF No. 21-1, Moore Decl. ¶ 3. Pursuant to the SCDC's directive to aid incarcerated individuals with reentry into their communities under the State of South Carolina's Offender Employment Preparation Program, outlined in S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-2110, the SCDC and JumpStart entered into a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) on May 26, 2015. ECF No. 40-2 at 1. Under the terms of the MOU, JumpStart agreed to provide its services to eligible inmates within SCDC facilities “to help ensure a successful reentry for such inmates into South Carolina communities.” Id. JumpStart formed one of its ministry/discipleship programs at the SCDC's Perry Correctional Institution (“PCI”).
Buchanan is an inmate at PCI. In early 2018, Buchanan applied for and was accepted into JumpStart's discipleship program. Buchanan alleges that to participate in the JumpStart program at PCI, an inmate must pass “a rigorous, forty (40) week, Christian religious character litmus test.” ECF No. 1-1, Compl. ¶ 29. In the fall of 2018, Buchanan graduated from the program as one of the highest-performing participants.
Following her graduation from the program, Buchanan requested to participate in JumpStart's leadership training program so that she could serve as a peer leader/coach for future JumpStart classes. In February 2019, upon completing the leadership training program, Buchanan began serving as a coach of a small group of participants in JumpStart's 2019 discipleship class. Buchanan claims that her job performance exceeded minimum expectations and that she continued to gain added responsibilities.
However, Buchanan claims those new responsibilities ended in early-March of 2019 when Epps, the senior chaplain at PCI, learned that Buchanan had been openly living as a transgendered individual from 2004 to 2008. Buchanan claims that subsequently, Epps banned Buchanan from using the PCI chaplaincy offices and equipment. Thereafter, Buchanan filed an American with Disabilities (“ADA”) discrimination claim against Epps but was advised that the ADA did not address discrimination on the basis of sex. On May 13, 2019, Johnson and Beard allegedly summoned Buchanan into the PCI chaplaincy office, where Johnson informed Buchanan that she could either repeat the entire JumpStart program or “walk out the door.” Compl. ¶ 41. Buchanan interpreted the decision as a discharge from her position and claims that as a consequence of losing her position in the program, JumpStart constructively denied her post-release employment and housing opportunities for which she had been on track to receive as a result of her advancement.
The JumpStart defendants dispute certain facts and events as represented by Buchanan. First, they claim that JumpStart does not begin the process of evaluating an inmate for participation in JumpStart's post-release housing or employment programs until the inmate's release is certain and imminent. As for Buchanan's removal from the JumpStart program, the JumpStart defendants claim that Buchanan was not removed because she is a transgendered individual. Rather, they submit that in March 2019, JumpStart discovered that one of Buchanan's close personal friends, John William Duncan (“Duncan”), was placed into Buchanan's small group. JumpStart has a policy against allowing its peer leaders/coaches to have close or negative relationships with inmates in their small groups. As a result, JumpStart decided to remove Duncan from Buchanan's group and informed Buchanan accordingly. According to the JumpStart defendants, Buchanan demanded that Duncan stay in her small group. Johnson and Sanders ultimately decided that based on her response, “Buchanan was not ready to serve as a peer leader/coach,” and Johnson subsequently offered Buchanan the choice to either stay in the class as a participant or leave the class. ECF No. 75-1, Sanders Aff. ¶¶ 26-27. At that point, Buchanan apparently accused Johnson “of acting like so many ‘other Christians' who had treated h[er] differently” based on her gender dysphoria. ECF No. 75-2, Johnson Aff. ¶ 20. Johnson claims he told Buchanan that her gender identity had “nothing to do with JumpStart's decision to remove h[er] from the peer leader/coach role.” Id. According to the JumpStart defendants, Buchanan voluntarily removed herself from the JumpStart program.
On December 10, 2019, Buchanan sent a letter to Sanders-JumpStart's executive director-requesting a reversal of the decision. Sanders denied the request on January 8, 2020. On March 27, 2020, Buchanan notified the members of JumpStart's board of directors of the situation but received no response. In January 2020, Buchanan filed a “Step 1” inmate grievance to the SCDC, which was denied by Buchanan's warden. ECF No. 1-3 at 5. On February 4, 2020, Buchanan filed a “Step 2” appeal, which the SCDC denied. Id. at 7. Thereafter, Buchanan appealed the SCDC's decision to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, asserting that the SCDC unlawfully retaliated against her for filing the initial sex discrimination complaint against Epps. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed the appeal without prejudice on October 29, 2020. Id. at 2; see also Buchanan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 20-ALJ-04-0215-AP (S.C. Admin. Law Ct. Oct. 29, 2020).
On February 5, 2021, Buchanan, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against the JumpStart defendants and the SCDC defendants. Compl. The complaint primarily sets forth claims for (1) conspiracy to violate Buchanan's civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, (2) violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (3) violation of the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment, and (4) violations of South Carolina statutory and constitutional law. Id. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C), all pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to Magistrate Judge Hodges. On February 14, 2022, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R on Buchanan's motion for default judgment and dismissed all claims made against the JumpStart defendants in their individual capacity, with the exception of Sanders, Johnson, and Beard. ECF No. 100.
On October 19, 2021, the SCDC defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 74. Buchanan responded to the motion on November 22, 2021, ECF No. 86, and the SCDC defendants replied on December 6, 2021, ECF No. 96. On October 19, 2021, the JumpStart defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 75. Buchanan responded to the motion on November 22, 2021, ECF No. 87, and the JumpStart defendants replied on November 29, 2021, ECF No. 92. On November 22, 2021, Buchanan filed her motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 88. The JumpStart defendants responded to the motion on December 3, 2021, ECF No. 93, and the SCDC defendants responded to the motion on December 6, 2021, ECF No. 95. On January 3, 2022, Buchanan replied to both responses. ECF No. 99. On March 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge Hodges issued the R&R, recommending that the court grant the SCDC defendants' motion for summary judgment, grant the JumpStart defendants' motion for summary judgment, and deny Buchanan's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 102.[4] On March 31, 2022, Buchanan filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 108. The SCDC responded to Buchanan's objections on April 13, 2022, ECF No. 109, and the JumpStart Defendants responded to the objections on April 14, 2022, ECF No. 110. Buchanan did not file a reply and the time to do both has now expired. As such, the matters are now ripe for the court's review.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's R&R to which specific, written objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party's failure to object is accepted as agreement with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The recommendation of the Magistrate Judge carries no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination rests with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . . or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the R&R to which a specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial