Enriquez v. Kearney

• Decision Date: 26 February 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 03-80483-CIV.
• Citation: 694 F. Supp.2d 1282
• Parties: Frank Rafael ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen KEARNEY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

694 F. Supp.2d 1282

Frank Rafael ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen KEARNEY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 03-80483-CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.

February 26, 2010.

Frank Rafael Enriquez, Arcadia, FL, pro se.

ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE WHITE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARCIA G. COOKE, District Judge.

This matter is before me on Judge White's Report and Recommendation D.E. 224 and Plaintiff Frank Enriquez's Objection to Report D.E. 225. I have conducted a de novo review of the record, which included Plaintiff's civil rights Complaint, including several supplements and amendments thereto, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge White's Report, and Plaintiff's Objection to Report. I agree with Judge White's Report and Recommendations.

Accordingly, I hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE that United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White's Report and Recommendation D.E. 224 is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as follows:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment D.E. 217 is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall CLOSE this case.

REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PATRICK A. WHITE, United States Magistrate Judge.

I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Frank Rafael Enriquez, a former Florida prisoner, finished serving sentences imposed upon convictions in Miami-Dade County cases 87-0061 and 90-5611, for offenses including sexual battery. Enriquez, now a civil detainee at the Florida Civil Commitment Center ("FCCC") in Arcadia, was previously a civil detainee in a Detainee Unit at South Bay Correctional Facility ("SBDU") until his March 8, 2001 transfer to the FCCC. He filed a pro se civil rights complaint (DE# 1) and supplements/amendments (DE# s 6, 60, 129) for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, about matters that occurred at the SBDU.

After a Preliminary Report and Order of Partial Dismissal (DE# s 9, 25) various defendants and claims were dismissed. (Among claims dismissed without prejudice was "denial of due process in disciplinary proceedings"). At the time, the complaint, as supplemented, was pending against defendants on claims which had been framed, as follows:

1. Excessive Force/Failure to Intervene claim, brought against defendant officers WOODS, ALLEN, COLEMAN, MAILMAN, GARY and LISS, based on use of force, including pepper spray, against plaintiff at SBDU Quad-2 on the morning of December 22, 2000;

2. Medical Indifference claim, brought against defendant physicians SCHOCOFF and LIANGCO, based on alleged failure to give proper treatment for plaintiffs back condition at SBDU.

3. Retaliation claim, brought against defendant officer PHILLIPS and defendant BELMONTE plaintiffs former girlfriend, based on alleged conspiratorial retribution for plaintiff having brought suit in state court against Belmonte for slander, which plaintiff claims was shown to exist because: Phillips in plaintiffs presence was overheard engaging in phone conversations with Belmonte on July 16 and August 25, 2000, and therein appeared to empathize with Belmonte; and then, after the August 25 telephone call, Phillips allegedly uttered a verbal threat "get the fuck out of my office, or I'll lock your ass up, you fucking piece of shit sexual predator" immediately after Phillips had said to the plaintiff, "I believe Jody ! You're a stinking predator, and she was crying on the phone because of your lawsuit."

AFTER THE FILING OF THE 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE PLEADINGS ALSO INCLUDED ADDITIONAL DUE PROCESS CLAIMS:

4. Confinement without Due Process claim, brought against defendant officers ALLEN and COLEMAN, BASED ON placement of plaintiff on alleged "punitive segregation" Room Restrict Status or "RR Status" on December 22, 2000; and Confinement without Due Process claim, brought against officer PHILLIPS, BASED ON plaintiffs continued placement on RR Status from from December 22, 2000, until January 15, 2001.

Following the "Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations" (i.e., Order DE# 184, entered March 5, 2007, adopting Reports DE# s 152 and 172), pursuant to which a motion to dismiss by Liss was denied, and a motion to dismiss by Belmonte was granted, the complaint, as amended (including the latest pleading DE# 129) remained pending against nine defendants.

The case, then assigned to the Honorable James C. Paine, United States District Judge, proceeded to summary judgment. However, after defendants filed motions for summary judgment with exhibits,¹ and the plaintiff Enriquez filed a response with exhibits,² Enriquez filed a notice of interlocutory appeal (DE# 187), and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (DE# 189) which was granted (DE# 192). The docket thereafter showed the case as closed, and the defendants' summary judgment motions (see footnote 1, supra) were not reflected on the CM/ECF docket as pending motions. Subsequently, the closed case was reassigned to the Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge, it was reopened, and the defendants were granted leave to renew their motions for summary judgment (see DE# s 200, 205, 207).

This Cause is now before the Court upon a joint renewed motion for summary judgment (DE# 217) by defendants ALLEN, PHILLIPS, MAILMAN, GARY, WOODS, LISS, COLEMAN, LIANGCO and SCHOCOFF, with Exhibits A-D (filed at DE# s 217-2 to 217-5), as to which Plaintiff Enriquez was advised of his right to Respond (see Order of Instructions, DE# 219).³ In opposition, Enriquez filed a "Renewed Declaration" (DE# 221 at pp. 1-8—incorporating by reference his prior Declaration and Exhibits filed earlier at DE# 175)⁴, a Brief (DE# 221 at pp. 9-16), and Composite "Exhibit A" (DE# 221 at pp. 17-30).⁵ The defendants filed no Reply.

In defendants' joint renewed motion, the following claims are addressed: 1) Use of Force on 12/22/2000 a claim raised against WOODS, ALLEN, COLEMAN, MAILMAN, GARY, and LISS⁶; 2) Inadequate Medical care a claim raised against LIANGCO and SCHOCOFF; and 3) Retaliation as to PHILLIPS. In their Motion(s) for Summary Judgment, the defendants did not separately address, in terms of Denial of Due Process, plaintiffs allegations against Allen and Coleman about his 12/22/2000 confinement on RR Status, or plaintiffs allegations against Phillips about his placement and continuation on RR Status from 12/22/2000 to 1/15/2001.

Defendants' Exhibits are: Exhibit A plaintiffs answers to interrogatories; Exhibit B "Report/Investigation of Force Used (Detainee Unit)" dated 12/22/2000; Exhibit C Affidavit of Sergeant Gary; and Exhibit D a copy of DE# 129, plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint.

Enriquez's Opposition consists of: 1) his Renewed Declaration, Brief, and Composite Exhibit A all filed at DE# 221; and 2) his prior Declaration DE# 175, pp. 1-16, with: Exhibit A an incomplete copy of the 12/22/2000 "Report/Investigation of Force Used (Detainee Unit)" submitted as defendants' Ex. B (at DE# 175, pp. 17-33); Exhibit B a composite exhibit consisting of medical records generated between March 2000 and July 2001, as well as affidavits executed 12/27/2000 by Drs. Liangco and Schocoff, pertaining to diagnosis and the course of treatment for Enriquez's back condition (at DE# 175 pp. 33-60, and DE# 175-1 pp. 1-12); Exhibit C a composite exhibit consisting of: requests and complaints ("Detainee Request/Complaint" forms) written by Enriquez between 12/27/99 and 2/22/01, with Responses from SBDU staff; and copies of a March 1, 2001 "Motion to Transfer Respondent to Arcadia" and a March 2, 2001 state Court "Order to Transfer," recommending that the DCF transfer Enriquez from the SBDU to the Detainee Unit in Arcadia (at DE# 175-1 pp. 13-26); and Exhibit D a composite exhibit consisting of Affidavits from 4 SBDU detainees (Hayes, Marcum, Alicea and Troville) about their observation of events on SBDU Quad-2 on the morning of 12/22/2000; and a copy of the Contract between Florida's Department of Children and Family Services ("DCF") and Wackenhut Corporation, for operation of a secure custody Civil Commitment Unit at South Bay, for the period 7/1/2000 to 6/30/2001, as a result of the "`Jimmy Ryce Involuntary Civil Commitment for Sexually Violent Predators' Treatment and Care Act' contained within ss.394.910-394.931, Florida Statutes" (at DE# 175-1 pp. 27-61).

II DISCUSSION

One of the basic guarantees under the Due Process Clause is that the States' ability to punish is predicated on the existence of an adjudication of guilt. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 533, 535, n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. Of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) ("the State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law") (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72, n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)).

The Supreme Court, in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), held that "persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish." Id., 457 U.S. at 322, 102 S.Ct. 2452. This, however, does not mean that a person so detained and confined is free to live within his/her designated institution without restrictions or limitations. Neither pretrial detainees facing charges, detainees in mental hospitals, nor persons confined as Sexually Violent Predators ("SVPs") are in the same position as a free individual in the outside world; and, although they may unhappy having to accommodate themselves to rules, restrictions, and orders given in the institution, imposition of the same upon them does not necessarily render such things punishment.⁷

The Supreme Court noted in Youngberg that "we have upheld those restrictions on liberty that were reasonably related to legitimate...