Chambers v. Cruz
| Decision Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 4:19-CV-3047 |
| Parties | DARRYL R. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. DELA CRUZ, Case Manager, Tecumseh State Prison, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; SCOTT FRAKES, Director, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; COLEMAN, Case Manager, Nebraska State Penitentiary, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; AMANDA CHADWICK, Unit Manager; ZAMORA, Case Manager; CROWDER, Case Manager, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; CATHY SHEAIR, Warden, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; SHERWOOD, Case Manager, All employed at Lincoln Correctional Center; ATHENA THOMAS, Unit Administrator, All employed at Tecumseh Correctional Center; HARDY, Corporal, All employed at Tecumseh Correctional Center; PAM HILLMAN, All Employed at Tecumseh Correctional Center; BRAD HANSEN, Warden, All employed at Tecumseh Correctional Center; HARBANS S. DEOL, D.O.; and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Filing 50. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: all claims against Defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages and retroactive declaratory relief are dismissed; all claims against Defendants in their individual capacities for injunctive relief are dismissed; Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting a violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical treatment is dismissed as to defendants Deol, Frakes, Hansen, Thomas, and Dela Cruz; Chambers's § 1983 claim asserting a violation of the Eighth Amendment based on his placement in isolation is dismissed; and Plaintiff's § 1983 claim asserting due-process violations based on his receiving misconduct reports and being deprived of property is dismissed. All other claims survive.
Plaintiff, Darryl R. Chambers, is an inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services ("NDCS"). Filing 19 at 3. On March 11, 2016, Chambers arrived in NDCS custody at the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center in Lincoln. Filing 19 at 19. Upon arrival, Chambers told an intake officer that he had concerns about two other inmates, R.E. and D.S., posing a threat to his safety. Filing 19 at 19. The cause of Chambers's concern was that he had testified against R.E. at a trial. Filing 19 at 19. R.E. and D.S.'s names were placed on Chambers's central monitoring list and NDCS made a record indicating Chambers should not be housed in the same facility as R.E. and D.S. Filing 19 at 19. At all relevant times, R.E. and D.S. were placed at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution ("TSCI"). Filing 19 at 20. According to the Amended Complaint, once this entry was made in his central monitoring list, "all NDCS" knew or should have known that placing Chambers in the same facility as R.E. and D.S. exposed him to a substantial risk of harm. Filing 19 at 19.
During his incarceration, Chambers was transferred first to the Nebraska State Penitentiary, then to the Lincoln Correctional Center, and eventually to TSCI where R.E. and D.S. were housed. Filing 19 at 19-21. Prior to his transfer to TSCI, Chambers told defendants Crowder and Sherwood that he could not go to TSCI because he feared for his safety since R.E. and D.S. were housed there. Filing 19 at 21. According to Chambers's exhibits, R.E. was on death row and D.S. was inLong-Term Restrictive Housing at TSCI and not in the general population. Filing 19 at 34, 50. NDCS apparently believed it could keep Chambers safe in general population at TSCI despite R.E. and D.S. also being in that facility. Filing 19 at 48. Upon his arrival at TSCI, Chambers requested to be placed in protective custody because he did not feel safe. Filing 19 at 21. Chambers also had concerns that even if R.E. and D.S. could not hurt him themselves, they might recruit other inmates to do so. Filing 19 at 21.
Defendant Dela Cruz, a case manager at TSCI, told Chambers he could not go into protective custody at TSCI because there was no room. Filing 19 at 5, 21. Thus, Chambers was housed in immediate segregation and placed in a special management unit. Filing 19 at 21. While in the special management unit, Chambers wrote defendant Hansen four times, Dela Cruz once, and Thomas once expressing his concern about being placed at TSCI. Filing 19 at 22, 33-37. Chambers was in the special management unit from June of 2018 to July 20, 2018. Filing 19 at 21, 24. During this time, Chambers refused two orders by NDCS staff instructing him to move from the special management unit to the general population. Filing 19 at 23-24. NDCS issued Chambers misconduct reports for his refusal to comply with these orders. Filing 19 at 23-24.
On July 20, 2018, NDCS staff told Chambers that he was being placed in housing unit 2AB, a part of the general population at TSCI. Filing 19 at 24. Less than five minutes after arriving at housing unit 2AB, three other inmates assaulted Chambers. Filing 19 at 24. After the assault, Chambers returned to the special management unit. Filing 19 at 25. NDCS staff did not give Chambers medical attention for three days after the assault despite his requests for the same. Filing 19 at 25. As a result of the assault, Chambers suffered injuries, including chronic back and neck pain. Filing 19 at 27. Chambers was transferred back to the Lincoln Correctional Center seven days after the assault. Filing 19 at 46. Chambers claims that while he was housed at TSCI in July2018, defendants Hillman and Hardy failed to safeguard his property which resulted in other inmates stealing it. Filing 19 at 26.
Chambers filed the present suit on May 20, 2019. Filing 1. On July 19, Senior Judge Richard Kopf performed an initial review to determine whether summary dismissal was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Filing 10. Judge Kopf allowed Chambers's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims to proceed against all Defendants in their individual capacities except as to defendants Hardy and Hillman. Filing 10 at 12. Judge Kopf dismissed Chambers's claims against Defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages and declaratory relief but permitted his claims for prospective injunctive relief to go forward. Filing 10 at 13. Judge Kopf granted Chambers leave to file an amended complaint. Filing 10 at 13.
Chambers filed his Amended Complaint on September 17, 2019. In it, he alleges a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim based on the 8th Amendment against all Defendants, Filing 19 at 27-28; a § 1983 denial-of-healthcare claim based on the 8th Amendment against defendants Frakes, Deol, Hansen, Thomas, Dela Cruz, and John Does 1 through 5, Filing 19 at 28-29; a § 1983 claim based on his placement in isolation in alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Frakes, Hansen, Sheair, Sherwood, Chadwick, Zamora, Dela Cruz, Crowder, Thomas, Hillman, and Hardy, Filing 19 at 29-30; a § 1983 claim for purported violation of his due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments against defendants Frakes, Hansen, Sheair, Sherwood, Chadwick, Zamora, Dela Cruz, Crowder, Thomas, Hardy, and Hillman, Filing 19 at 30-31; and a tort claim of negligence against defendants Hillman and Hardy, Filing 19 at 31. He alleges all claims are against Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Filing 19 at 4-6. Further, although his Amended Complaint is less than clear, the Court reads it as seekinginjunctive relief, declaratory relief, and monetary damages for each of his claims. Filing 19 at 27-32.
Following the filing of the Amended Complaint, Defendants moved to dismiss several of Chambers's claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Filing 50; Filing 51. Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss all requests for monetary damages or other retroactive relief which are filed against them in their official capacities. Filing 51 at 3. Defendants also move to dismiss all claims for injunctive relief against them in their individual capacities. Filing 51 at 3-5. Defendants Frakes and Deol move to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claims against them, claiming they cannot be held liable under a respondeat superior theory for a § 1983 claim. Filing 51 at 5-6. Defendants Frakes, Deol, Hansen, Thomas, and Dela Cruz move to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim involving denial of healthcare against them because they claim they had no involvement in the medical care Chambers received or was denied. Filing 51 at 6. All Defendants move to dismiss Chambers's claim regarding his placement in isolation, arguing their actions do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Filing 51 at 6-8. All Defendants move to dismiss Chambers's due-process claims arguing there is no established right to avoid a misconduct report while incarcerated or to not have other inmates steal one's possessions. Filing 51 at 8-9. Lastly, defendants Hillman and Hardy move to dismiss Chambers's negligence claim against them, arguing either that Chambers has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or that sovereign immunity bars the claim. Filing 51 at 9-11.
"Rule 12(b)(1) . . . governs challenges to subject matter jurisdiction." Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir. 1990). "In order to properly dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the complaint must be successfully challenged on its face or on the factual truthfulness of its averments." Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993). "In a facial challenge to jurisdiction, the court presumes all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction to be true and will grant the motion only if the plaintiff fails to allege an element...
To continue reading
Request your trial