Burton v. Wetzel
| Decision Date | 27 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:16-CV-1953 |
| Parties | NIARA BURTON, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Magistrate Judge Schwab)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
Broadly framed, this case presents substantial questions regarding how courts should reconcile issues of personal autonomy, gender identity, and personal privacy with the essential security requirements of the state correctional system. The plaintiff, Niara Burton, is a transgender inmate who has been confined in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections since 2012 following her murder conviction in Philadelphia. While incarcerated in the state prison system, Ms. Burton alleges that she has been subjected to acts of harassment, discrimination and retaliation based upon her gender identification, and her efforts to assert her rights. These issues will be addressed and resolved through merits litigation conducted before our colleague, Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab.
Today, our task is a narrower, but nonetheless important undertaking. We are presented with a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff, Niara Burton, which seeks to enjoin prison staff from retaliating against her for reporting alleged incidents of sexual harassment, abuse or misconduct. This request for preliminary injunctive relief arises in a very specific factual context, in which Burton asserts that she filed grievances against prison staff in May of 2017, and then was issued what she viewed as retaliatory misconduct citations and was disciplined based upon allegations that she had made false statements to prison staff in these grievances.
We have provided the parties with ample opportunity to develop the factual background and legal underpinning for this motion for preliminary injunction, and conducted a hearing on this motion on September 11, 2017, allowing all parties to fully present their respective motions on this request for extraordinary preliminary injunctive relief. Thus, this motion is now ripe for resolution.
The evidence presented at this hearing disclosed that Ms. Burton has been incarcerated in the state prison system since 2012. During that time she has filed more than 100 grievances against various prison staff protesting what Burton regarded as discriminatory or retaliatory conduct by prison officials based upon her gender identification. On September 26, 2016, these protests and grievances culminated in the filing of this lawsuit in federal court. (Doc. 1) This federallawsuit initially lodged three claims against prison officials, alleging that prison staff's treatment of Burton at various institutions rose to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiff has now amended her complaint, (Doc. 36-1) to assert additional Eighth Amendment claims and a First Amendment retaliation claim against prison officials. This First Amendment retaliation claim involves, in part, the conduct which forms the basis for this motion for preliminary injunction.
Briefly, the pertinent facts are as follows: In the Spring of 2017, Ms. Burton was transferred to the State Correctional Institution Coal Township (SCI Coal Township). Upon her arrival at this facility Ms. Burton was initially housed in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) at that institution.1 Ms. Burton was also on hand-held camera status at this time, which meant that planned movements of Ms. Burton within the prison were routinely documented by video.
In addition to this video surveillance, security considerations within the RHU prescribed specific protocols for the movement of inmates like Burton. As a general practice, RHU inmates are strip searched prior to leaving their cells, in that the inmates are required to remove their garb inside their cells and pass it through a cell door wicket for inspection by staff. Staff also conduct a visual inspection ofthe inmates through the cell door to ensure that the prisoners do not possess contraband or dangerous articles. Once this in-cell strip search inspection is completed, the inmates' clothing is returned to them through the cell door wicket, the inmates dress, restraints are applied to the prisoners, and they are removed from their RHU unit cells. Once outside the cells, RHU inmates were subject to a second pat-down frisk before they were moved for showers, recreation or other activities. These protocols were followed with all RHU inmates, including Ms. Burton while she was housed in the RHU at SCI Coal Township. However, in Ms. Burton's case the hand held videos depicting these prisoner movements did not depict the in-cell strip search. Videographers were instructed to refrain from documenting this portion of the cell movement process out of a concern for her privacy.
On two consecutive days in May, 2017—May 2 and 3—Burton had interactions with staff at SCI Coal Township as she was moved from her cell. Burton and prison officials had very different perceptions regarding these two interactions, both of which were captured on video, and these two interactions formed the basis for the following four events: First, the filing of two grievances by Burton against staff; second, submission of two disciplinary citations lodged against Burton by prison staff; third, the filing of the instant motion for preliminary injunction; and, finally, the filing of Burton's amended complaint.
The first of these two interactions took place on May 2, 2017, when Burton was moved from her cell and taken to the prison recreation yard. The second disputed cell movement occurred the following day, May 3, when Burton was removed from her cell for a shower. As discrete incidents, these two cell movements were perceived in very different ways by the parties. For her part, Ms. Burton filed grievances describing her subjective impressions of these two episodes. In her grievance relating to the May 2 cell transfer, Ms. Burton alleged that after she was removed from her cell, instead of conducting a pat-down frisk, a correctional officer "was fondling my body" and "rubbed my whole body not 'pat down' like he should." Stating that she felt violated by this conduct Burton lodged a grievance which demanded $1,000,000 and other relief from prison staff.
As for the May 3 incident, in her grievance relating to this episode, Ms. Burton stated that she was required to strip in the presence of four correctional officers, all of whom who she accused of voyeurism. Ms. Burton's grievance demanded $750,000 in damages and other relief from prison officials as a result of this alleged act of voyeurism.
Because the allegations in these two grievances included claims of sexual assault and harassment, prison officials believed that Burton's assertions triggered their responsibilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), to conduct an investigation into these claims. That investigation was undertaken by LieutenantChristopher Brownawell, the prison's designated PREA investigator. Lieutenant Brownawell's investigation led to findings that were entirely at odds with Ms. Burton's claims. At the outset, with respect to the May 2, cell movement, Brownawell interviewed all of the staff involved in this incident, who uniformly denied that Burton was fondled in any sexually suggestive way during the pat-down search of this inmate. Several potential inmate-witnesses identified by Burton were also interviewed but did not corroborate her account and recollection of this event.
With respect to the May 3 episode, which was the subject of Burton's second grievance, as part of his investigation Lieutenant Brownawell interviewed the staff involved in this inmate move, all of whom denied engaging in acts of voyeurism. The lieutenant also photographed Burton's cell from the location where several officers reported that they were standing when Burton performed her in-cell strip search, prior to being taken full clad to the showers. From the officers' reported location, the photograph revealed that Burton would not have been readily visible to these staff as she removed her clothing inside her cell for a strip search inspection before she was removed fully dressed from the cell.
Finding that Burton's allegations in these two grievances were false, Lieutenant Brownawell concluded that these assault allegations were unfounded, and further recommended that Burton be cited by misconduct, specifically formaking a false statement to staff. This recommendation was then adopted by prison staff; Burton received two misconduct citations for allegedly making false statements to staff; and following a June 2017 disciplinary hearing she was found guilty of these prison infractions and sentenced to two 30 day terms of disciplinary custody.
The parties appear to be in agreement that these were the first two instances in which Burton was cited for misconduct arising out of any allegedly false grievances she submitted to prison officials. The parties also appear to concede that there have been no further misconduct citations of this type lodged against Burton in the intervening four months since these two discrete episodes took place. Finally, the parties are in accord that these disciplinary sanctions have not deterred Burton from filing further grievances against prison staff relating to what she perceives to be staff misdeeds, malfeasance or nonfeasance. Quite the contrary, it is reported that Ms. Burton has continued to actively grieve other matters since May 2017.
With the parties' factual narratives concerning these two episodes cast in this stark conflict, each party has insisted that the videos depicting these two cell movements fully support their contrasting accounts of what transpired. As part of these proceedings, we have carefully scrutinized these videos on multiple occasions. In undertaking this video review, we are mindful that these events arenow...
To continue reading
Request your trial