Coleman v. Tanner
| Decision Date | 27 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-906 |
| Parties | MARK A. COLEMAN v. ROBERT C. TANNER ET AL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Plaintiff, Mark A. Coleman, is a prisoner currently incarcerated in the Rayburn Correctional Center ("Rayburn") in Angie, Louisiana. He filed this complaint pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Rayburn Warden Robert C. Tanner, Warden Steve Rader of Dixon Correctional Institute and Warden Allemand of Allen Correctional Center. Just as he alleged in a similar suit filed and dismissed in this court three years ago, Coleman v. Tanner, C.A. No. 09-7346 "I"(2), Coleman again asserts that he is being denied "the same privileges as the rest of general population" and that "I feel my life may be in danger" because of his past cooperation with prison officials that resulted in the prosecution of several state corrections officers. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of transfer to another facility and witness protection. Record Doc. No. 1 (Complaint at ¶s IV and V).
Coleman supplemented his complaint with a motion for preliminary injunction and statement of facts reiterating his requests to be "transferred to a more safer (sic) environment" because of the "risk" posed by his past cooperation in the prosecution ofcorrectional officers, Record Doc. No. 4 at p. 2; "to stop the ongoing poisoning of my food while I'm housed in . . . maximum custody," Record Doc. No. 12 at p. 2; and "[b]ecause I've been attacked once already in (sic) sustained injuries [to] my elbow, . . . threaten[ed] to be killed by other offenders continuously . . . [and] written up and placed on cell confinement since November 2011 because I've continued several request[s] for protection . . ." Record Doc. No. 17 at p. 2.
On June 19, 2012, I conducted a telephone conference in this matter. Participating were plaintiff pro se; Jonathan Vining and Joey Pousson, counsel for defendants. Plaintiff was sworn and testified for all purposes permitted by Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), and its progeny.
In 2009, Coleman filed Civil Action No. 09-7346 "I"(2) against Rayburn Warden Robert C. Tanner, Deputy Warden Keith Bickham and Classification Director Lynn McCloud in this court. He alleged that prison officials failed to protect him from attack by another inmate, Daryl Toney, who injured his arm and elbow. He also alleged that defendants were holding him in disciplinary confinement in retaliation for his requests for assistance, protection and transfer to another facility because of his past cooperation in the prosecution of correctional officers.
Civil Action No. 09-7346 was dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Record Doc. No. 22 (Judgment in Civil Action No. 09-7346), and his state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
During the conference conducted in the instant case on June 19, 2012, Coleman confirmed that he remains incarcerated in Rayburn based upon the same 2006 conviction for distribution of cocaine, resulting in a 20-year prison sentence, that was the basis for his incarceration during his previous lawsuit. He confirmed that in the instant lawsuit he seeks transfer from Rayburn to another prison facility, though not necessarily to the jail in his home town of Houma, Louisiana. Coleman stated that he would accept transfer to any other facility that would constitute "a more safer environment."
Coleman also acknowledged that he had filed the earlier, similar lawsuit in this court that was dismissed two years ago involving the same kinds of complaints and seeking similar relief. Asked what circumstances had changed since his similar complaint asserting the same kinds of claims was dismissed in May 2010, Coleman stated that "more problems have occurred since then." Asked what problems had occurred, Coleman said, Coleman confirmed that all of these things occurred before May 2010, when his prior lawsuit was dismissed. The record of this court in his prior lawsuit, confirms that the same facts were raised and considered at that time. C.A. No. 09-7346 "I"(2), Record Doc. No. 20.
Thus, Coleman was asked to focus his current testimony on events that had occurred since that time. He stated, "Since that happened, I have requested several protection situations based on inmates threatening my life, . . . labeling me as a confidential informant . . . for the state, and I've also had problems out of security here that's labeling me as a confidential informant, and it just continues to go on and on and on." Coleman testified that several inmates, including Daryl Toney, the same person whose attack on him in May or June 2008 was one of the subjects of his dismissed prior lawsuit, had threatened him. Coleman complained that Toney and he are "not supposed to be around each other," but they are both nevertheless housed in "Sun Unit, it's like a maximum custody, but we all go out on the rec (sic) yard together." Coleman said that Sun Unit is a stricter security, more restricted area than the general prison population, where he was being housed at the time his previous lawsuit was dismissed.
Coleman testified that he is now being housed in this more restrictive area as a response to his requests for protection. He described his current housing unit as a "maximum security facility." He stated that he had been in the maximum security area since June 2008, and he was released from maximum security in February 2011, but "the problem got so bad I had to come back November of last year (2011)."
Coleman testified that "they kept writing me up" because he kept bringing complaints to the warden telling him that he was receiving murder threats from other inmates while in the general prison population, "but I don't want to give up my rights of being in general population."
Coleman complained that "you stay here [in the maximum security area] for 90 days, and then they look at your record to see if you go back to [general] population. If you don't receive no rule infractions or writeups and stuff, they can put you back in [general] population, but that's not my case. . . . The officials here know that it's a possibility that if I do get put back in [general prison] population, that I could get hurt,"so he is asking prison officials for a protective custody living situation that also allows him to enjoy the privileges of living in the general prison population that are not available in the Sun Unit maximum security area. Coleman complained that "they keep writing me up every 90 days" to keep him in maximum security. He admitted, however, that in the general prison population, there is a risk that he would be hurt by other inmates based upon the threats he has received.
Plaintiff summarized that his complaint in this case is that he has been threatened and that he constantly receives disciplinary write-ups for rule infractions that keep him in the maximum security unit. On cross-examination, Coleman confirmed that he has not been in Allen Correctional Center since 2007.
After the telephone conference, Coleman filed an "Emergency Request," apparently in support of his earlier filed motions for preliminary injunction. Record Doc. No. 20. In that request, he specified that "there's no sort of money damages in this matter that's because it's not about that . . . ." Id. at p. 5. He alleged that he is sick, suggested that he is being poisoned in the jail, and requested that the court "investigate through technology 'blood work' to determine if any poisons were administered and how long it's been in the liver." Id. at p. 6. These same kinds of allegations concerning poisoning and resulting sickness were asserted and rejected in his prior lawsuit. C.A. No. 09-7346 "I"(2), Record Doc. No. 20 at pp. 20-23.
The purpose of a Spears hearing is to dig beneath the conclusional allegations of a pro se complaint, to ascertain exactly what the prisoner alleges occurred and the legal basis of the claims. Spears, 766 F.2d at 180. "[T]he Spears procedure affords the plaintiff an opportunity to verbalize his complaints, in a manner of communication more comfortable to many prisoners." Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). The information elicited at such an evidentiary hearing is in the nature of an amended complaint or a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 481 (5th Cir. 1991); Adams v. Hansen, 906 F.2d 192, 194 (5th Cir. 1990). "Upon development of the actual nature of the complaint, it may also appear that no justiciable basis for a federal claim exists." Spears, 766 F.2d at 182.
"A federal court may dismiss a claim in forma pauperis 'if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.'" Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994) ()(emphasis added). A complaint is frivolous "if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact." Davis...
To continue reading
Request your trial