Gales v. Bryson, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-65

• Decision Date: 02 November 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-65
• Parties: DEANGELO GALES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER HOMER BRYSON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

DEANGELO GALES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER HOMER BRYSON, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:15-cv-65

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

November 2, 2020

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 61. Plaintiff filed a Response, doc. 65, and Defendants filed a Reply, doc. 66. Plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 14 at 11. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he has been falsely labeled a gang member and indefinitely held in segregated confinement on that basis. Doc. 23 at 2-3. Defendants have shown they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed material facts, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated any genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and enter judgment in Defendants' favor. I also RECOMMEND the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE this case and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff's Allegations and Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action concerning certain conditions of his confinement at Ware State Prison ("WSP"). Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his due process rights by placing him in Tier II administrative segregation ("Tier II") beginning in February 2013 because of his alleged membership in the Goodfellas gang without a hearing. Doc. 23 at 2. Plaintiff claims he is not a member of the Goodfellas gang and that his placement in Tier II was and is without basis. Doc. 65 at 1.

The Magistrate Judge conducted a frivolity review of Plaintiff's Complaint and found Plaintiff stated a non-frivolous due process claim but recommended the Court only allow Plaintiff to pursue injunctive relief and nominal damages. Doc. 14. The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation without objection. Doc. 15. The Court then granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint, doc. 19, which Plaintiff did on March 4, 2016, adding additional Defendants, as well as a First Amendment claim, doc. 23. Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 54. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees, as well as Plaintiff's First Amendment claims and claims for injunctive relief against Defendant Bryson. Id. Plaintiff now proceeds on a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant Bryson for nominal damages and against all other Defendants for nominal damages and injunctive relief.

The parties completed discovery, and Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. Doc. 61. Defendants raise three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) a portion of Plaintiff's claims is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff's procedural due process rights were not violated because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in being held with the general population as opposed to in Tier II and Plaintiff was afforded sufficient due process in his assignment to Tier II; and (3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Doc. 61-34.

Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motion, asserting he is not a Goodfellas member and that his permanent placement in Tier II on this basis violates his due process rights. Doc. 65 at 23. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts his unjustified gang classification, on its own, is also a violation of his rights. Id. at 19. Plaintiff claims his gang classification allows him to only be housed with other gang members and has a stigmatizing effect which will follow him for life. Id.

II. Undisputed Material Facts

Defendants submitted a Statement of Material Facts ("Defendants' SMF") in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1. Doc. 61-1. Defendants' SMF relies on various affidavits and prison records as support, including: the affidavit of Nathan Brooks, former Unit Manager of WSP's segregation unit, doc. 61-2; the affidavit of Derek McKinney, the Georgia Department of Corrections' ("GDC") Security Threat Group Coordinator, doc. 61-29; the affidavit of Robert Toole, former WSP Warden, doc. 61-33; copies of select portions of the GDC Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP"), docs. 61-3, 61-4, 61-5; numerous documents pertaining to Plaintiff's assignment to Tier II segregation, including notes from segregation hearings, docs. 61-6 through 61-12, and 90-day review forms spanning from January 2014 to June 2017, docs. 61-13 through 61-28.

Plaintiff filed a "Response to Motion for Summary Judgment," in which he addresses each enumerated paragraph in Defendants' SMF, doc. 65 at 1-10, and addresses factual statements in the documents Defendants offered in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, id. at 11-28, often admitting Defendants' factual allegations.¹ Although Plaintiff'sResponse ostensibly attempts to respond to Defendants' SMF, the Response is deficient in various ways. First, Plaintiff did not support his factual responses with citations to the record, as he was required to do, or show by affidavit or declaration that any facts were unavailable to him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), (d). Indeed, Plaintiff's Response is merely a signed filing, not made under penalty of perjury. Moreover, many of Plaintiff's statements in his Response are not factual allegations at all (or even rebuttals to factual allegations), but, are instead, arguments, rhetorical questions, and supposition. See, e.g., Doc. 65 at 2 ("I'm not in prison because of another persons crime, am I? No! So I shouldn't be held accountable for others actions. When officers do things that are wrong only that officer is punished, am I right?"); Id. at 4 ("Why is that my word is good when I'm so call admitting something that is in Defendants favor? But when I'm admitting that I am not Goodfellas my word means nothing its not good or credible?"); Id. ("If I was so called validated on Sept 20 2013 then the Defendants violated their own rule which would violate my due process."); Id. at 8 ("Because as I have said before the commissioner had a hold on all labelled Goodfellas so no matter what was put on the appeal I couldn't win. Also it was to vaguely for me to have any defense."); Id. at 19 (arguing that being labelled a gang member is worse than being labelled a sex offender). While the Court is sympathetic to challenges pro se litigants face, such litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. United States v. Theodore, 780 F. App'x 769, 771 (11th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Court should not consider those statements in Plaintiff's Response that consist only of unsupported factual allegations, arguments, rhetorical questions, or supposition.²

After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court identifies the following undisputed, material facts for the purposes of evaluating Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment: Beginning in 2013, the GDC established a standing policy of assigning all Goodfellas gang members to administrative segregation, later deemed Tier II segregation. Doc. 61-1 at 3. The GDC implemented this policy based on the Goodfellas' history of violence across the state prison system and the likelihood that such violence would continue. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff was placed in Tier II segregation on February 26, 2013, as a suspected member of the Goodfellas gang. Id. at 4-5. GDC investigators validated Plaintiff's gang membership on September 20, 2013, based on his alleged self-admission, use of gang language, and association with another gang member. Id. at 5. In protesting his assignment to segregation, Plaintiff wrote in an October 2013 appeal, "I'm being discriminated against just because I am part of something. No other organization is being put in this program." Id. In a July 2014 appeal, Plaintiff wrote, "I'm being discriminated against because I'm (GF) . . . ." Id. In 2015, while investigating Plaintiff's claim he was not a Goodfellas member, investigators found a photo album in his locker box which contained the statements, "GF Still Standing," and "GF to the Def [sic] of Me." Id. GDC officials informed Plaintiff he could renounce his Goodfellas membership, but Plaintiff would not sign the renunciation form. Id.

GDC SOP IIB09-0001, provided by Defendants, details the conditions of Tier II administrative segregation when Plaintiff first arrived there in February 2013.³ Doc. 61-3 at 6. "Cells shall be well ventilated, adequately lighted, appropriately heated and maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. All cells shall be equipped with beds which may be securelyfastened to the wall or floor." Id. "Cells in Administrative Segregation shall be equipped and furnished in a manner similar to cells in the general population." Id. "Each inmate/probationer shall be provided the same opportunities for personal hygiene available to the general population, except that an inmate/probationer may be limited to showering and shaving three (3) times per week." Id. "Food provided inmates in Administrative Segregation shall be the same quality and quantity as that provided in the general population." Id. "Inmates/Probationers may order items from the commissary," but such items may be withheld if determined to be a threat. Id. at 7. Further, inmates are limited to $60.00 of commissary items. Id. "[E]xercise periods shall be available for a minimum of five (5) hours per week, with at least one (1) hour per day on five days. This exercise shall be outside the cells, unless security or safety considerations dictate otherwise." Id. Regarding visiting and correspondence privileges and, presumably, library access, other SOPs, which were not provided to the Court, governed. Id. at 6.

Effective August 1, 2013, ...