Citrano v. Allen Correctional Center, CV 94-1076.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. CV 94-1076.,CV 94-1076.
• Citation: 891 F. Supp. 312
• Parties: Joseph V. CITRANO and Kevin R. Chapman v. ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

891 F. Supp. 312

Joseph V. CITRANO and Kevin R. Chapman v. ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER.

No. CV 94-1076.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division.

June 14, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph V. Citrano, pro se.

Kevin R. Chapman, pro se.

Barbara D. Gibson, Lundy & Davis, Lake Charles, LA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM RULING

TRIMBLE, District Judge.

Presently before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se petitioners Joseph V. Citrano and Kevin R. Chapman. The petition is based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs are currently confined at Allen Correctional Center in Kinder, Louisiana.

The plaintiffs allege that on or about March 29, 1994, plaintiffs were taken from their dormitory quarters and assaulted by the defendants, Sgt. Whittington, Sgt. Stenson, and Sgt. Jacobs. Plaintiffs allege that this physical assault was without lawful cause and in derogation of the plaintiffs' civil rights. Said assault resulted in significant and permanent personal injuries. The plaintiffs further allege that after the alleged assault, the defendant, Captain Bellon, hindered, prevented, discouraged and prohibited the plaintiffs from receiving adequate medical for their injuries. It is alleged that this action by Capt. Bellon constitutes deliberate indifference to the medical needs of the plaintiffs, which is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

It is further alleged that the remaining defendants, Sgt. Jowel, Sgt. Austin, Warden Terry Terrell, Deputy Warden Andrews and Deputy Warden Crutcher, acting individually and in concert with each other, then prevented discouraged, hindered and prohibited the plaintiffs from seeking legal redress for their injuries and engaged in a concerted and individual effort to cover up, hide, negate, and otherwise avoid disclosure of the alleged incident. Warden Andrews allegedly received a telephone call from Lucille Gwenn, Chapman's grandmother, concerning his injuries, but was advised that he was jumped by other inmates.

The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) F.R.Civ.P. stating that:

1) The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars official capacity suits against state officials;

2) The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity;

3) The plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

The defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b) states that "If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." The movers did not introduce matters outside the pleadings in this case, therefore the court will consider this a Rule 12(b) motion.

On a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must view the plaintiffs' complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and must accept as true all of the factual allegations in the complaint.¹ The motion will be denied if the allegations support relief on any possible theory.² The court will "bend over backwards to avoid granting a 12(b) motion to dismiss."³

"The court's inquiry is directed to whether the allegations constitute a statement of a claim under Rule 8(a)."⁴ All that is required is that the petition include "a short and plain statement of the claim that gives the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiffs' claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."⁵

There is no requirement that the plaintiff "set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim."⁶ General factual allegations are sufficient and the court "will presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim."⁷ However, conclusory allegations concerning the legal affect of the events alleged do not have to be accepted by the court.⁸

Qualified Immunity

Allen Correctional Center (ACC) is a state corrections facility under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. It is operated by a private contractor, Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut), in accordance with the provisions of the Louisiana Corrections Private Management Act, LSA-R.S. 39:1800.1 et seq. Thus, the personnel operating the prison are employees of a private corporation rather than direct employees of the state. One issue before the court is whether the prison officials and correction officers at ACC are entitled to the qualified immunity afforded state prison officials. See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). There is little authority on point and the authority that does exist is in conflict. Manis v. Corrections Corporation of America, 859 F.Supp. 302 (M.D.Tenn. 1994) (no immunity); Smith v. United States, 850 F.Supp. 984 (M.D.Fla.1994) (immunity); Tinnen v. Corrections Corporation of America, 1993 WL 738121 (W.D.Tenn.1993) (immunity). This court concludes that the defense of qualified immunity is available to ACC personnel.

The Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity for government officials in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). In doing so the Court relied on the common law for guidance.

... the common law soon recognized the necessity of permitting officials to perform their official functions free from the threat of suits for personal liability. This official immunity apparently rested, in its genesis, on two mutually dependent rationales: (1) the injustice, particularly in the absence of bad faith, of subjecting to liability an officer who is required, by the legal obligations of his position, to exercise discretion; (2) the danger that the threat of such liability would deter his willingness to execute his office with the decisiveness and the judgment required by the public good.

416 U.S. at 239-40, 94 S.Ct. at 1688

In extending qualified immunity to school officials the Court stated:

The imposition of monetary costs for mistakes which were not unreasonable in the light of all the circumstances would undoubtedly deter even the most conscientious school decision maker from exercising his judgment independently, forcefully, and in a manner best serving the long-term interest of the school and the students. The most capable candidates for school board positions might be deterred from seeking office if heavy burdens upon their private resources from monetary liability were a likely prospect during their tenure.

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 318-22, 95 S.Ct. 992, 999-1000, 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975).

The rationale of these decisions was intended to guide the federal courts in resolving the tension between a plaintiff's right to compensation and the interests of the public as a whole "in the myriad factual situations in which it might arise." Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 503, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2909, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). In O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975) the court used this same rationale to grant qualified immunity to the superintendent of a state mental hospital. The Supreme Court again utilized this same rationale when it held that state prison officials were protected by qualified immunity in Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978).

The Court has consistently utilized a functional approach in determining the proper scope of immunity. Butz v. Economou, supra at 513, 98 S.Ct. at 2914 (federal hearing examiner or administrative law judge is "functionally comparable" to a judge); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 342, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 1119, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) ("... immunity analysis rests on functional categories not on the status of the defendant."); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201, 106 S.Ct. 496, 501, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) ("... immunity flows not from rank or title or location within the Government, but from the nature of the responsibilities of the individual official." (internal quotes omitted)); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 227, 108 S.Ct. 538, 544, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988) ("... immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches."). The determination of whether qualified immunity applies to the personnel at ACC must also turn on an analysis of function and not on their status as private parties versus state employees. See Sherman v. Four County Counseling Center, 987 F.2d 397 (7th Cir.1993) (qualified immunity extended to private medical institution involved in the emergency involuntary detention and treatment of a person); Frazier v. Bailey, 957 F.2d 920 (1st Cir.1992) (private parties who contracted with state to provide counselling services statutorily required of state were entitled to qualified immunity); Rodriques v. Furtado, 950 F.2d 805 (1st Cir. 1991) (qualified immunity available to private physician who conducted a body cavity search); DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., 844 F.2d 714, 722-23 (10th Cir.1988) (qualified immunity available to private party defendants acting in accordance with the duties imposed by a contract with a governmental body to perform a governmental function).

The prison guards and correctional officers at ACC are required to perform the same functions and are faced with the same types of situations requiring the exercise of discretion as are state employees working in state prisons. The only difference is that those working at ACC do so pursuant to an employment contract with a state contractor whereas state employees do so pursuant to an employment contract with the...