Daker v. Head

• Decision Date: 20 December 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-47
• Parties: WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK HEAD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK HEAD, et al.,¹ Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

December 20, 2019

ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is presently incarcerated at Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia, filed a Complaint, as supplemented, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq. ("RLUIPA"). Docs. 1, 9. This matter is before the Court for a frivolity screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff asserts a number of claims, spanning various years of incarceration in Georgia state prisons. For ease of reference, it is helpful to group Plaintiff's claims into three categories. First, Plaintiff asserts claims against various individuals associated with his criminal prosecution in Cobb County, Georgia ("Cobb County Claims"). Second, Plaintiff asserts claims against various individuals affiliated with the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, where Plaintiff was housed at one point during his period of incarceration ("GDCP Claims"). Third, Plaintiff asserts claims against the Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDC"), individualsaffiliated with the GDC, and individuals associated with Georgia State Prison, another facility where Plaintiff was housed ("GSP Claims"). With these categories in mind and for the reasons that follow, I RECOMMEND the Court:

1. SEVER the Cobb County Claims from this case, TRANSFER all of Plaintiff's Cobb County Claims to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for disposition, and TERMINATE the Defendants named in Plaintiff's Cobb County Claims as named Defendants in this case;² and

2. SEVER the GDCP Claims from this case, TRANSFER all of Plaintiff's GDCP Claims to the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for disposition, and TERMINATE the Defendants named in Plaintiff's GDCP Claims as named Defendants in this case;³

Regarding the GSP Claims, I find that some of the claims should be dismissed. Specifically, I RECOMMEND the Court:

1. DISMISS all of Plaintiff's GSP Claims against Defendants Georgia Department of Corrections, Fountain, Major Smith, Rozier, James Smith, Fowler, Broome, Jackson, Mr. John Doe (Medical Director), and Dr. John/Jane Doe (dentist) and TERMINATE these Defendants upon the docket and record of this case;⁴2. DISMISS Plaintiff's grievance procedure claims against Milton Smith;

3. DISMISS all of Plaintiff's substantive due process claims;

4. DISMISS all of Plaintiff's claims under the RLUIPA;

5. DISMISS Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Defendants Jacobs, Toole, Shuemake, Todman, and Davis;

6. DISMISS all of Plaintiff's deprivation of property claims; and

7. DENY Plaintiff's preliminary injunctive relief Motions, as supplemented, docs. 8, 10, 11, 72, 73.

However, some of Plaintiff's GSP Claims survive frivolity review and will proceed in this Court. Therefore, I DIRECT the United States Marshals Service to serve a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint, doc. 1, Supplemental Complaint, doc. 9, and a copy of this Order on the Defendants named in these claims. Specifically, I conclude the following GSP Claims against the following Defendants will proceed:

1. Deliberate indifference to serious medical need claims asserted against Defendants King, Paul, Toole, Salgado, Lightsey, Sharon Brown, Strickland, Dobbs, Crowder, Caravello, McNunn, Nicolou, Silvers, Cowart, Brady, Wooten, Thurmond, Milton Smith, Owens, Ward, Jacobs, Bailey-Dean, Murphy, Shuemake, Todman, and Davis;

2. Deliberate indifference to health and safety and excessive use of force claims asserted against Defendants Warren, Cauley, and Davis;

3. Access to the courts (postage) claims asserted against Defendants Toole, Kilgore, Brown, and Henry; and4. Procedural due process claims asserted against Defendants Deloach, Owens, Toole, Bailey-Dean, and Jacobs.⁵

Finally, I have determined that certain of Plaintiff's claims and allegations require clarification in order to proceed. Accordingly, I ORDER Plaintiff to clarify his claims, within 21 days of this Order, as follows:

1. Plaintiff must identify the Defendants he claims are liable for the following claims: (a) denial of access to the courts (mailing issues); (b) violations of religious rights under the First Amendment; and (c) conditions of confinement claims at GSP.

2. Plaintiff must identify the specific Defendants responsible for each policy or practice in place at GSP which he contends led to the violations of his rights.

3. Plaintiff must file a single "Supplement" containing the information described, which must not exceed 5 pages. To be clear, the Court is not asking Plaintiff to provide an Amended Complaint, only a supplement to his previously filed pleadings, and Plaintiff may not attempt to interject new and unrelated claims or additional Defendants into this lawsuit.

4. Conclusory "all Defendants" statements and similarly vague allegations are not sufficient. Plaintiff must identify each Defendant properly by name.

5. Failure to follow these instructions may result in dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.

BACKGROUND⁶

Plaintiff filed this cause of action, as supplemented, in 2014 while he was housed at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. Docs. 1, 9. After several procedural twists and turns, including an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the subsequent vacatur of this Court's judgment of dismissal and remand, Plaintiff's Complaint, as supplemented, is ready for frivolity review.⁷

In his Complaint, Plaintiff names over 30 individuals, including former Cobb County prosecutors and a judge. Doc. 1 at 1, 6-8. In his supplement, Plaintiff identified many of the John and Jane Doe Defendants named in his original Complaint, doc. 1 at 1, and added almost 30 new Defendants to his cause of action. Doc. 9 at 1-3. Plaintiff incorporated the factual allegations contained in his original Complaint, but he also set forth allegations relating to events occurring before and after the events of his original Complaint and numbered the paragraphs in his supplement beginning with the numbers after those he used for the allegations contained in his original Complaint. Doc. 1 at 33; Doc. 9 at 1. Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff's "Amended Complaint" as being a supplement to his original Complaint, as the second filing builds on his original Complaint. See Faulk v. City of Orlando, 731 F.2d 787, 790-91 (11th Cir.1984) (construing pro se plaintiff's three pleadings together as one complaint in determining whether plaintiff stated claim).

I. Cobb County Claims

Plaintiff contends that, after he was convicted in the Cobb County Superior Court, and upon his conviction, certain Defendants asked the Georgia Department of Corrections to place him in solitary confinement and to deny him law library access in an effort to hinder his ability to challenge his conviction and sentence. Doc. 1 at 10. Plaintiff asserts these claims against Defendant Head (the former Cobb County District Attorney), Defendant Evans (a Cobb County Assistant District Attorney), and Defendant Staley (the presiding judge in his Cobb County trial). These claims are collectively referred to as the "Cobb County Claims."

II. GDCP Claims

Plaintiff asserts claims against various individuals affiliated with the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison ("GDCP"). Specifically, Plaintiff names as Defendants: Carl Humphrey (former Warden); Bruce Chatman (Warden); June Bishop (Deputy Warden of the Special Management Unit ("SMU")); James McMillan (Unit Manager); Michael Nopen (Chief of Security); Torjka Nash (a counselor); Lesley Medlock (Chief Counselor); and Officer Sarah Barber. Plaintiff's claims against the GDCP Defendants generally concern his cell assignments from 2012 to 2014 (and the conditions of those locations) and GDCP's shaving policies ("GDCP Claims") prior to his transfer to Georgia State Prison.

Plaintiff alleges he was transferred into the custody of GDCP in October 2012 and was placed in the SMU without benefit of a hearing within 96 hours of his transfer.⁸ Doc. 1 at 11-12.According to Plaintiff, the relevant Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP") explains that the SMU is a high-maximum lockdown unit for inmates who are at the high-maximum security level or who commit serious disciplinary infractions, yet he was a close security inmate with no disciplinary infractions. Id. Plaintiff claims his assignment to this unit placed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. As examples, Plaintiff maintains he was denied access to the law library, legal research materials, religious services, contact visits, and television and telephone privileges, while prisoners in general population had access to these services and materials. Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff maintains that, due to the lack of access to legal materials at GDCP, he was unable to file a brief regarding his conviction or rebut the State's cited authorities. Id. at 13. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts he was unable to research or submit legal authorities to the trial court, which resulted in the exclusion of 60 witnesses during the hearing on his motion for new trial and the denial of his motion. Id. at 14.

Plaintiff asserts he asked Defendants Humphrey and Bishop on October 4, 2012 why he was placed in the SMU, and Defendant Humphrey stated Plaintiff's criminal case was of a high-profile nature, that he was "familiar with" Plaintiff's prior incarceration period (1996-2005) and litigation history during that time, that "we" will make sure Plaintiff "can't do that," and that Plaintiff would be in the SMU for at least a year and for as many as five years. Id. at 12. Plaintiff maintains his placement in the SMU due to his high-profile case was a pretext for retaliation. Id. at 13. Plaintiff contends he filed a classification appeal with Defendant Humphrey on ...