Denney v. Berkeley Cnty.

• Decision Date: 17 July 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:10-1383-RMG-JRM
• Parties: JAMES DENNEY,1 Plaintiff, v. BERKELEY COUNTY; WAYNE DEWITT, SHERIFF OF BERKELEY COUNTY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL; TINA MAYBANK; JONATHAN MENZIE; CRYSTAL THOMPSON; MARK TUCKER; AND JONATHAN WIGFALL, EACH SUED INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

JAMES DENNEY,¹ Plaintiff,

v.BERKELEY COUNTY; WAYNE DEWITT, SHERIFF OF BERKELEY COUNTY,IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL; TINA MAYBANK;

JONATHAN MENZIE; CRYSTAL THOMPSON; MARK TUCKER;

AND JONATHAN WIGFALL, EACH SUED INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:10-1383-RMG-JRM

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dated: July 17, 2012

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, James Denney, filed this action on May 27, 2010.² On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("AC") alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988; the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and South Carolina law. At the time of the alleged incidents, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Berkeley County Detention Center ("BCDC"). Defendants are Berkeley County; Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt ("DeWitt"); and BCDC detention officers Tina Maybank ("Maybank"), Jonathan Menzie ("Menzie"), Crystal Thompson ("Thompson"), Mark Tucker ("Tucker"), and Jonathan Wigfall ("Wigfall"). On September 29, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition on October 25, 2011, and Defendants filed a reply on November 14, 2011.

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The facts and inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Shealy v. Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1011 (4th Cir. 1991). The moving party "bears the initial burden of pointing to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 718 (4th Cir. 1991)(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)) If the moving party carries this burden, "the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with facts sufficient to create a triable issue of fact." Id. at 718-19 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248.

FACTS IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PLAINTIFF

On September 29, 2008, the Charleston Port Police detained Plaintiff for an outstanding warrant issued in Berkeley County. Plaintiff's Dep. 46, 50. The warrant was for a lewd act upon a child under sixteen. Defendants' Ex. 1³ (Affidavit) and 2 (Warrant); Plaintiff's Dep. 51. Atapproximately 7:00 p.m., a bond hearing was held and a bond amount of $60,000 was set for Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Dep. 65.

BCDC operated on two twelve-hour shifts. The correctional officers involved in the alleged actions were working a shift that began at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, September 29, 2008, and ran until 5:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30, 2008. See Plaintiff's Ex. H (Daily Activity Report). The State of South Carolina sets minimum standards that require that persons incarcerated, or in pretrial status, be classified so their housing can be arranged to maximize safety and minimize potential for assault. See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-9-50(A)(2)(requiring reports on such classification); Plaintiff's Ex. D (excerpts of State Minimum Standards for Classification "for placement in housing."). The State requires that "assaultive/non-assaultive behavior," among other factors, be considered in determining detainee housing. Plaintiff's Ex. D (South Carolina Minimum Standards, § 1081), and requires "separate management" for persons in "categories that may pose a security problem" including persons charged with sex offenses. Plaintiff's Ex. D (South Carolina Minimum Standards, § 1082(a)).

Following his bond hearing, Plaintiff was given paperwork which specified his name, charge, and bond amount. Plaintiff's Dep. 68-69. Plaintiff was placed back in a holding cell, at which time he noticed another detainee was reading his (Plaintiff's) paperwork over Plaintiff's shoulder. Plaintiff's Dep. 78.

Defendant Maybank, who was present at Plaintiff's bond hearing, made the initial decision on the classification of Plaintiff and as to his placement. Maybank Dep. 20-21, 29 She states that the general population is mainly placed in Pod B, with violent offenders placed on the bottom partof the pod and nonviolent offender on the top part of the pod. Overflow transfers to Pod C⁴ when Pod B is full. Maybank 19. Maybank could not recollect her reasoning for placing Plaintiff in Pod C-1, but said that to put him there, would mean that every room was full to capacity on the top level of Pod B. Id. at 20-21. At around 10:00 p.m., Plaintiff was placed in Pod C-1 which housed at least 50 other detainees. See Answer, Para. 26; Plaintiff's Ex. C.

Another detainee (the one who allegedly read Plaintiff's paperwork) told other detainees that Plaintiff was a "child rapist." Plaintiff's Dep. 78. Plaintiff was aware of the onerousness of his charge which had the potential to elicit a strong adverse reaction from the other inmates. He lied to the other detainee about the charge, stating he was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. Plaintiff's Dep. 218-219.

At approximately 10:05 p.m., Plaintiff returned from the restroom to find his towel, sheet, and pillow had been taken by other detainees. See Plaintiff's Ex. C. (Phone Call Transcript at 2). At around 10:15 p.m., Plaintiff called his parents from phones located in Pod C-1. Plaintiff's Dep. 81; Maybank Dep. 9. He told his parents he was "scared to death to go to sleep," and he thought "there will probably be a fight here before the night's over." Plaintiff's Ex. C (Phone Call Transcript at 3, 9).

After 11:00 p.m., bail bondsman Ernest Davis ("Davis") called the detention center and spoke with Sgt. Maybank. According to Maybank, "[Davis] said he'd been in contact w/[Plaintiff's] father and [Plaintiff's] father said that I/M Denney was being threatened." Plaintiff's Ex. K, Def. 035-036 (Maybank Statement). Maybank told Davis that nothing had been said to her and Plaintiff could callthe tower by intercom if there was a problem. Id. Maybank did not go back to the cell to check on Plaintiff or determine whether he was being threatened. Maybank Dep. 53.

Breakfast is served at BCDC at approximately 4:00 a.m. The lights are dimmed or turned off after breakfast. See Plaintiff's Dep. 61. Defendant Menzie testified that the lights were turned off after breakfast to allow inmates to sleep. Menzie Dep. 15-16.

Some time before breakfast was served at its regular time, Robert Farrington (another BCDC detainee) began seeking other detainees to compose a "jury," for an apparent trial. Plaintiff's Dep. 100. Plaintiff was appointed another detainee as his "attorney," and detainee Christopher Wolf ("Wolf") agreed to serve as the presiding "judge." Plaintiff's Dep. 101-103. A jury was selected from detainees and Plaintiff was put on notice prior to breakfast that the other detainees were going to beat him up when the opportunity presented itself. Plaintiff's Dep. 104. Plaintiff testified that he "knew what was coming....They told me when the lights went out I would get beat." Plaintiff's Dep. 104.

Around 4:00 a.m., breakfast service began for Pod C, Plaintiff's housing unit. Plaintiff's Dep. 61; Defendants' Ex. C (Daily Activity Report for September 29, 2008). Plaintiff told other detainees that he did not want breakfast and did not need to get in line to get breakfast, but they told him to get in line and stand between them. Plaintiff complied. Plaintiff's Dep. 106-107. Breakfast was served to the inmates of Pod C by having the inmates form a line and exit through their housing unit door, passing by Defendant Tucker. See Tucker Dep. 15. Detainees filed to the far end of the room to get a food tray from Defendant Wigfall. Wigfall Dep. 44. Defendant Private First Class Wigfall was senior to Defendant Private Tucker. Wigfall Dep. 50. On their way back to the cell, inmates passed Tucker for a second time.

Plaintiff did not say anything to Tucker when he exited Pod C. Plaintiff's Dep. 107, Tucker Dep. 15. Upon reentering Pod C after getting his tray, Plaintiff told Tucker that he "couldn't go in there [the holding cell]." Tucker asked him why, and Plaintiff replied that he was "terrified for my life to go back in there because they're threatening to beat me when the lights go out." Plaintiff's Dep. 109. Plaintiff states that Tucker told him there was nothing he could do about it, but that Tucker would relay the message and get back with Plaintiff later. Plaintiff stated that "later's going to be too late." Plaintiff's Dep. 109-110.⁵ Tucker conveyed to Wigfall that Plaintiff expressed feeling threatened. See Plaintiff's Ex. K, Def. 037; Tucker Dep. 36. Wigfall stated that he was informed by Tucker that an inmate in Pod C-1 overflow wanted to move out of the cell because there might be a problem. He told Tucker that he (Wigfall) would handle the situation after they were finished feeding the detainees. Plaintiff's Ex. K (Wigfall Witness Statement). Plaintiff claims that Wigfall directed Tucker to complete the lockdown of persons in Pod B and finish his (Tucker's) assignments as to medications, and that Wigfall would check on Plaintiff after that. See Plaintiff's Ex., Def. 038. Wigfall claims that when inmates have a problem in their cell they usually tell both officers in the dorm and refuse to go back to their cells, but Plaintiff did not do so. Plaintiff's Ex. K (Wigfall Statement).

Plaintiff claims that detainees covered the camera and intercom in Pod C-1 with wet toilet paper. Plaintiff's Dep. 118-119. Once the breakfast trays were collected, the detainees convened Plaintiff's "trial"...