Chapman v. Proctor

• Decision Date: 10 January 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:20-cv-91
• Parties: TREVON DESHON CHAPMAN, SR., Plaintiff, v. JAMES PROCTOR, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

TREVON DESHON CHAPMAN, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES PROCTOR, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-91

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

January 10, 2022

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION^[1]

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants James Proctor, Rob Mastroianni, Eric Watson, Charles Grant, Buck Aldridge, James Minor, Willie Phillips, Sherard Savage, Luis Vallejo, and Jennie Sikes' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. 35. Plaintiff filed a Response, and Defendants filed a Reply. Docs. 41, 43. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff's:

1. Fifth Amendment claim against Mastroianni, Sikes, and Watson

2. Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical needs claim against Defendants Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni

3. Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Defendants Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni

1

4. First Amendment access-to-courts claims against Defendants Proctor, Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni;

5. First Amendment free exercise claim against Defendants Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni; and

6. First Amendment mail claim against Defendants Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni.

Doc. 35. Based on these recommendations, I also RECOMMEND the Court terminate Sikes, Mastroianni, and Proctor as Defendants in this case. Plaintiff's claims for excessive force against Defendants Minor, Phillips, Savage, Grant, Vallejo, Dillio, Aldridge, and Watson remain pending.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint on August 25, 2020, doc. 1, and the Court conducted frivolity review, doc. 11. In the resulting Report, I recommended dismissal of several of Plaintiff's claims. Id. In lieu of objections, Plaintiff requested leave to amend, doc. 14, which the Court granted, doc. 16. Plaintiff then timely complied with the Court's Order directing him to file an Amended Complaint. Doc. 32. In response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Defendants initially filed an Answer and have now filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. 35.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings several claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit concerning events occurring while he was incarcerated at the Camden County Jail as a pretrial detainee. Doc. 32. Plaintiff's claims arise from his placement in a suicide prevention cell from August 2, 2018 to August 18, 2018, as well as the forced removal of Plaintiff's clothing and placement in a restraint chair on August 9, 2018. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Proctor, Mastroianni, Sikes, and Watson decided on August 2, 2018, to place him in a suicide prevention cell even though he was not suicidal or threatening to harm himself. Id. at 9. Defendants Watson and Sikes informed

2

Plaintiff he was placed in the suicide prevention cell to prevent any further damage to the facility by Plaintiff. Id. at 11.

On August 2, 2018, Defendants Aldridge, Dillio, Minor, Vallejo, and Watson escorted Plaintiff to the suicide prevention cell. Id. at 9, 11. While placing Plaintiff in the cell, Defendants Aldridge, Dillio, and Vallejo held Plaintiff down while Defendant Minor repeatedly struck Plaintiff in the head. Id. at 9, 11. Plaintiff asserts this assault by Defendants Aldridge, Dillio, Minor, and Vallejo violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. at 9. Additionally, while being held down, Defendant Watson cut off Plaintiff's clothing. Id.

Plaintiff alleges he was again assaulted on August 9, 2018, by Defendants Phillips, Savage, and Grant. Id. at 6, 9. Defendants Phillips and Savage grabbed Plaintiff, slamming him to the ground. Id. at 12. Defendant Phillips then kneeled on Plaintiff's neck, restricting his breathing. Id. Then, Defendants Phillips, Savage, and Grant placed Plaintiff in a restraint chair for two hours, during which time he was also handcuffed. Id. at 6-7. As a result of placement in the restraint chair and being handcuffed, Plaintiff had to have a fingernail removed, and a nurse observed nerve damage and calcium build-up on his wrists . Id. at 10. Plaintiff also asserts a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim for the assault and placement in the restraint chair. Id. at 6-7, 9.

Furthermore, Plaintiff contends the conditions of his confinement in the suicide prevention cell violated his constitutional rights. Id. at 11-12. While in the suicide prevention cell, Plaintiff was not provided with a bed, toilet, sink, clothing, or adequate heating and often had to choose between showering, using the restroom, exercising, or accessing the law library during his time outside the cell each day. Id. at 11. Plaintiff was denied toiletries, was not able to wash his hands or otherwise clean himself inside the cell, and was not provided with utensils

3

with which to eat. Id. Plaintiff was also denied his medically necessary hernia strap by Defendant Mastroianni, Sikes, and Watson, which made it painful for him to eat, sleep, and defecate, and constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Id. at 6, 11. Plaintiff complained to Defendants Proctor, Mastroianni, and Watson about the conditions of his confinement to no avail. Id. at 9

Additionally, while in the suicide prevention cell, Plaintiff states he was not provided legal materials, allowed to make phone calls relating to his legal matters, or given time to complete legal research, even though he was preparing to defend himself on a criminal charge. Id. at 6. When Plaintiff tried to alert the state court of the difficulties he was facing, Defendant Proctor prevented Plaintiff from doing so. Id. at 9, 12. Based on the difficulties Plaintiff faced preparing for his criminal case and Defendant Proctor's interference in court, Plaintiff brings a First Amendment access-to-court claim. Id. at 6, 7, 12. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Watson, Sikes, and Mastroianni denied Plaintiff religious materials and restricted Plaintiff's access to mail, violating his First Amendment rights. Id. at 6. Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants Mastroianni, Sikes, and Watson violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by placing Plaintiff in the suicide prevention cell as punishment for allegedly damaging the facility and then prosecuting him for the same. Id.

DISCUSSION

Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on Plaintiff's claims arising under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. 35, 43. However, Defendants do not seek judgment on the pleadings of Plaintiff's excessive force claims. Id. Plaintiff opposes Defendants' Motion in its entirety. Doc. 41.

4

I. Judgment on the Pleadings Standard

“Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation omitted). The court “accept[s] as true all material facts alleged in the non-moving party's pleadings, and [views] those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. As a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 12(c) and a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) are almost identical in form and relief, courts apply the same legal standard in assessing both motions. See Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 173 F.Supp.3d 1324, 1327 (N.D.Ga. 2016) (“The legal standard for assessing a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”) (citing Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998)).

Under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Adinolfe v. United Tech. Corp., 768 F.3d 1161, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the allegations in the complaint must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the defendant unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint is insufficient if it “offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the

5

elements of a cause of action, '” or if it “tenders ‘naked assertions' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). In short, the complaint must provide a “‘plain statement' possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

Finally, the court affords a liberal construction to a pro se litigant's pleadings, holding them to a more lenient standard than those drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, this liberal construction does not mean the court has a duty to re-write the complaint. Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).

II. Analysis

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff's: Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claim; Fourteenth Amendment deliberate...