Gibbs v. N.H. Dep't of Corr. Comm'r Helen Hanks

• Decision Date: 25 August 2021
• Docket Number: Civil No. 20-cv-1113-LM
• Citation: 561 F.Supp.3d 139
• Parties: Peter GIBBS and Brett (Brooke) Sonia v. N.H. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER HELEN HANKS et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

561 F.Supp.3d 139

Peter GIBBS and Brett (Brooke) Sonia

v.N.H. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER HELEN HANKS et al.¹

Civil No. 20-cv-1113-LM

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.

Signed August 25, 2021

Peter Gibbs, Airway Heights, WA, Pro Se.

Brett Brooke Sonia, Airway Heights, WA, Pro Se.

ORDER

Landya B. McCafferty, United States District Judge

New Hampshire Department of Corrections ("NHDOC") inmates Peter Gibbs and Brett (Brooke) Sonia (a transgender woman) filed this action in November 2020, asserting federal civil rights claims relating to their confinement in a correctional facility in the State of Washington. Before the court is their jointly-filed motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 2).

Background

Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Sonia have filed this action asserting claims relating to the conditions of their confinement at the Airway Heights Correctional Center ("AHCC") in Washington, where they had both been transferred to serve a portion of their New Hampshire sentences, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact ("ICC") agreement executed by both states.² The ICC generally makes it the responsibility of the administration of the institution in the receiving state to provide for the safe confinement, care, and treatment of inmates from the sending state. See Doc. No. 4, at 42.

Plaintiffs allege that AHCC officers have not adequately provided for their safety and physical and mental health, and that AHCC agents have interfered with their mail and access to the courts. Plaintiffs, who have not named any AHCC officers or agents as defendants in this action, claim that in transferring them out of state without monitoring the care they receive, and in failing to review or respond to their grievances about the conditions at the AHCC, the NHDOC defendants are liable for the violations of plaintiffs’ federal rights, which plaintiffs allege have occurred at the AHCC.

In their original complaint (doc. no. 1), signed only by Mr. Gibbs, plaintiffs demanded damages, costs, and injunctive relief, including an order directing that Mr. Gibbs be transferred back to New Hampshire. In their motion for a preliminary injunction, signed by both Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Sonia, plaintiffs specifically seek injunctions: (1) protecting them from retaliation for filing this lawsuit; (2) prohibiting AHCC officers from tampering with their mail; (3) prohibiting AHCC employees from impeding their access to the courts; (4) requiring AHCC employees to deliver a package addressed to Mr. Gibbs that was delivered to the AHCC in September 2020, but which Mr. Gibbs did not receive; and (5) mandating that Mr. Gibbs and Ms. Sonia be allowed to file electronically here and in other courts where electronic filing is required.

The claims set forth in Document Nos. 1 and 2 are claims upon which both plaintiffs base their motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 2). For purposes of deciding the instant request for preliminary injunctive relief, the court summarizes and numbers those claims as follows:

1. The NHDOC defendants manifested deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ health and safety, by causing them to be subjected to a substantial risk of serious harm, rendering those defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violations of the Eighth Amendment, by:

a. transferring Mr. Gibbs to the AHCC, far away from his family and friends, resulting in emotional harm and personal loss to Mr. Gibbs;

b. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC officers to provide Mr. Gibbs with appropriately-sized new shoes prior to December 2020, which Mr. Gibbs needed to replace shoes that were falling apart, ill-fitting, and unsuitable for cold weather, and which caused him pain and impaired his ability to walk;

c. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC health care providers to order an MRI or surgery to treat Mr. Gibbs's painful and debilitating herniated discs

;

d. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC health care providers to repair the torn meniscus in Mr. Gibbs's knee, which had been diagnosed as requiring surgery;

e. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC dental care providers to deny plaintiffs dentures, tooth cleanings, and other dental care for the plaintiffs’ tooth pain and bleeding;

f. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC health care providers to diagnose or treat Mr. Gibbs's painful lung condition, which he feared could be chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"); and

g. failing to monitor the plaintiffs’ statuses and respond to grievances, with regard to the failure of AHCC health care providers to provide the plaintiffs with appropriate mental health treatment for their mental health conditions.

2. The NHDOC defendants violated the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights, rendering them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that:

a. they did not respond to the plaintiffs’ grievances regarding the conditions at the AHCC, in violation of plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights; and

b. the AHCC failed to credit and debit Mr. Gibbs's inmate account in the same amounts that the NHDOC would have credited and debited the accounts of NHDOC inmates, in violation of Mr. Gibbs's right to equal protection.

3. The NHDOC defendants are liable for the conduct of AHCC agents to the extent that:

a. AHCC librarians did not permit the plaintiffs to file pleadings in this case

electronically, in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment right of access to the courts; and

b. AHCC mailroom staff members, in September 2020, seized, opened, and did not deliver to Mr. Gibbs (for multiple weeks) a package containing a complaint or notice of intent to sue prepared by Mr. Gibbs, after that package had been returned to the AHCC from New Hampshire, in violation of Mr. Gibbs's:

i. right of access to the courts, and

ii. First Amendment rights.

4. Defendants NHDOC Assistant Commissioner Kench and/or NHDOC Medical and Forensic Services Director Mattis withheld information from NHDOC Commissioner Hanks relating to the conditions of Mr. Gibbs's confinement at the AHCC, rendering Assistant Commissioner Kench and/or Director Mattis liable for a conspiracy to violate Mr. Gibbs's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986.

In February 2021, Ms. Sonia placed a set of motions and declarations (doc. Nnos. 4, 5, 6) into the prison mail system for filing in this case, which, in part, assert new claims and name the N.H. State Prison ("NHSP") Warden Michelle Edmark as a new defendant. Around the time those documents were filed, prison officials transferred Mr. Gibbs back to New Hampshire.³ Given Mr. Gibbs's failure to sign many of the pleadings filed by Ms. Sonia, Mr. Gibbs's intent to continue to participate as a party in this case remains unclear.

For purposes of deciding the instant request for preliminary injunctive relief, the court summarizes the claims asserted in Doc. Nos. 4, 5, and 6, as follows:

5. The NHDOC defendants and the NHSP Warden subjected plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in that defendants failed to monitor the plaintiffs’ welfare and failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ grievances, when:

a. AHCC officials placed Ms. Sonia (a vulnerable, transgender female inmate):

i. in a cell with predatory male inmates, and

ii. in isolation when she complained about inmate threats and sexual assaults;

b. AHCC health care providers failed to provide Ms. Sonia with sexual reassignment surgery, mental health treatment, and other appropriate care for her gender dysphoria

;

c. AHCC policies exposed plaintiffs to a heightened risk of COVID-19 infection, given the plaintiffs’ ages (over 50), Ms. Sonia's COPD, and Ms. Sonia's need for a nebulizer, resulting in Ms. Sonia's COVID-19 infection in December 2020;

d. AHCC officials failed to provide Ms. Sonia with her nebulizer ; and

e. AHCC health care providers failed to provide Ms. Sonia with dental care she needed to prevent or treat tooth loss.

6. The NHDOC defendants and NHSP Warden are liable for AHCC prison officials’ refusal to make certain rehabilitation programs, cell assignments, or services

available to Ms. Sonia because of her transgender status, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

7. The NHDOC defendants and NHSP Warden are liable for adverse acts of the AHCC mailroom staff, taken in retaliation for plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, in that the AHCC mailroom did not deliver a package to Mr. Gibbs containing a complaint or notice of intent to sue, which was sent back to him at the AHCC in September 2020.

8. The NHDOC defendants and NHSP Warden are liable for:

a. subjecting plaintiffs to conditions of confinement at the AHCC violating federal laws regarding torture, elder abuse, and mail tampering; and

b. arbitrary and capricious agency action, under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Discussion

I. Deferral of Completion of Preliminary Review

In this court, the magistrate judge screens complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against government employees, before directing that any defendant file an answer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A ; LR 4.3(d)(1). This court, in ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunctive relief, takes no position as to whether any of the claims summarized herein should be served or dismissed for reasons set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and LR 4.3(d)(1). The magistrate judge is expected to complete her preliminary review of Claims 1-8, or issue another appropriate order, after plaintiffs have had an opportunity to respond to the August 9, 2021 Order (doc. no. 7) directing them to pay the filing fee or to file...