Hunnicutt v. FNU Desantiago
| Decision Date | 26 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 18-0889 JB\JFR,CIV 18-0889 JB\JFR |
| Parties | Carnell HUNNICUTT, Plaintiff, v. FNU DESANTIAGO, Moriama Valeriano, D.L. Richardson, FNU Gonzales, D. Mungia, and GEO Group, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Carnell Hunnicutt, Southern NM Correctional Facility, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Plaintiff pro se.
April D. White, YLAW, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff's Amended Pro Se Civil Rights Complaint, filed October 9, 2018 (Doc. 9)("Amended Complaint"); (ii) the Defendants FNU DeSantiago, Moriama Valeriano, D.L. Richardson, and GEO Group, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support, filed September 20, 2018 (Doc. 2)("Original MTD"); and (iii) the Defendants FNU DeSantiago, Moriama Valeriano, D.L. Richardson, and GEO Group, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support, filed October 18, 2018 (Doc. 10)("MTD"). Plaintiff Carnell Hunnicutt alleges prison supervisors retaliated against him after he filed grievances and he then engaged in an explosive argument with Correctional Officer FNU DeSantiago. Having carefully reviewed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will grant the MTD and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Hunnicutt originally filed this action on July 13, 2018, in New Mexico's Fifth Judicial District Court, Case No. D-506-CR-2018-1259. See Complaint (Tort), filed July 13, 2018 (Doc. 1-1)("Original Complaint"). FNU DeSantiago, Moriama Valeriano, D.L. Richardson, and GEO Group, Inc. removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on September 20, 2018, within the requisite thirty days of service. See Notice of Removal ¶ 5, at 2, filed September 20, 2018 (Doc. 1)("Notice"). DeSantiago, Valeriano, Richardson, and GEO Group filed the Original MTD on the same date. See Original MTD at 1. On September 9, 2018, Hunnicutt filed the Amended Complaint. See Amended Complaint at 1. The Amended Complaint focuses on a conflict between Hunnicutt and DeSantiago, a correctional officer at the Lea County Correctional Facility. For the limited purposes of this ruling, the Court assumes Hunnicutt's allegations are true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
The conflict appears to trace back to September 29, 2016, when Hunnicutt filed a grievance against DeSantiago. See Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 2. DeSantiago allegedly treated Hunnicutt "as if [he] was special management status"; kept him "from appointments"; and "contain[ed] [him] in the unit." Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 2. Hunnicutt then filed a grievance against Lea County Correctional Grievance Coordinator Valeriano for "circumventing [New Mexico Corrections Department] grievance policy to shield her co-workers['] abuse of authority." Amended Complaint ¶ 12, at 2. Hunnicutt also alleged Valeriano was not properly trained for her job. See Amended Complaint ¶ 13, at 2. Between January, 2017 and March, 2017, Hunnicutt filed two additional grievances against DeSantiago and one additional grievance against Valeriano. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 14-16, at 2. He alleges DeSantiago is racist and "deliberate[ly] indifferen[t]," and that she stated in front of other inmates that Hunnicutt "isn't right in the head and files a lot of grievances." Amended Complaint ¶¶ 14, 16, at 2. Hunnicutt further alleges Valeriano violated grievance policies and/or did not resolve the dispute. See Amended Complaint ¶ 15, at 2.
On April 8, 2017, Hunnicutt met with Lea County Correctional Sergeant Mungia and accused DeSantiago of "unprofessionalism and racist behavior." Amended Complaint ¶ 17, at 2. Mungia promised to speak with DeSantiago, but Hunnicutt felt that a conversation would not resolve the problem. See Amended Complaint ¶ 18, at 2. Hunnicutt told Mungia, Amended Complaint ¶¶ 18-19, at 2-3. Hunnicutt then filed a grievance against Mungia, alleging that an earlier informal complaint "disappeared" from Hunnicutt's possession. Amended Complaint ¶ 20, at 3. Hunnicutt also alleges that Mungia ignored the Lea County Correctional handbook, which requires prison staff to report abuse. See Amended Complaint ¶ 23, at 3. It is not clear how those grievances were resolved, but Hunnicutt was not satisfied with the results.
On July 6, 2017, Hunnicutt and DeSantiago were both assigned work in housing pod 3-B. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 24-25, at 3. Hunnicutt was working on the paint and detail crew. See Amended Complaint ¶ 25, at 3. At some point, DeSantiago told the unit to lock up for maintenance. See Amended Complaint ¶ 25, at 3. Hunnicutt stated that he was working with the maintenance crew and needed to finish his job, which the Warden assigned. See Amended Complaint ¶ 25, at 3. DeSantiago ignored him again and yelled "lock up." See Amended Complaint ¶ 26, at 3. Hunnicutt packed his tools in his work cart. See Amended Complaint ¶ 27, at 3. He refused, however, to leave his "Class A" tools unattended, per the Warden's instructions. See Amended Complaint ¶ 27, at 3. DeSantiago again instructed Hunnicutt to "lock up or leave," as two maintenance technicians entered the unit. Amended Complaint ¶ 28, at 4. Hunnicutt told DeSantiago to ask the maintenance technicians whether Hunnicutt was working with them on the maintenance crew, but DeSantiago just glared at Hunnicutt. See Amended Complaint ¶ 28, at 4. Hunnicutt finally agreed to leave and began pushing his cart towards the door. See Amended Complaint ¶ 29, at 4.
The Amended Complaint alleges that, as Hunnicutt was pushing the cart, Hunnicutt and DeSantiago engaged in the following exchange:1
Amended Complaint ¶¶ 30-33, at 4.
Hunnicutt and DeSantiago then entered housing pod D and continued the argument in the D-space area near Robert Pryor, Officer Jimenez, and Officer Gonzales. See Amended Complaint ¶ 34, at 4. DeSantiago called Hunnicutt a "piece of sh*t" and stated: Amended Complaint ¶¶ 35-36, at 4. Hunnicutt laughed at DeSantiago, which made her angrier. See Amended Complaint ¶ 36, at 4. She continued:
Amended Complaint ¶ 36, at 4. DeSantiago then called Hunnicutt's mother a "n**ger w*ore" who "collects welfare[s]" and stated:
Amended Complaint ¶¶ 39-40, at 5.
Until this point, none of the nearby Lea County Correctional officers intervened in the verbal altercation. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 37-38, at 4-5. DeSantiago then told a nearby Hispanic inmate: "That n**ger is talking about our people (the Mexican race)." Amended Complaint ¶ 41, at 5. The inmate removed his shirt, raised his fist, and made a comment like he wanted to fight. See Amended Complaint ¶ 42, at 5. Hunnicutt said: "Bring it, because [you're] going to lose." Amended Complaint ¶ 42, at 5. Hunnicutt's friend weighed in, telling DeSantiago: "I don't know why you told that inmate that, he ain't going to do sh*t to Hunnicutt." Amended Complaint ¶ 43, at 5. Lea County Correctional Officer Gonzales finally stepped in and called Sergeant Mungia. See Amended Complaint ¶ 44, at 5.
When Mungia and Captain Phelps arrived, Hunnicutt reported DeSantiago's racial slurs. See Amended Complaint ¶ 48, at 6. Hunnicutt also admitted that he "gave [DeSantiago] back what she was dishing out" and that "it felt good to finally give [her] some of her own medicine." Amended Complaint ¶ 49, at 6. Mungia placed Hunnicutt in administrative segregation for one night and issued a misconduct report. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 50-52, at 6. After interviewing several witnesses, Lea County Correctional officials found that the matter was informally resolved and dismissed the misconduct report. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 56-58, at 6-7. When Hunnicutt returned from segregation the next day, however, he learned Mungia had reassigned his bed from housing pod 3. See Amended Complaint ¶ 59, at 7. Mungia placed him in housing pod 4, which is allegedly chaotic, full of excessive noise, gang-bangers, and young, intoxicated inmates. See Amended Complaint ¶ 60, at 7.
Hunnicutt filed grievances and informal complaints stemming from the July 6, 2017, altercation. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 57-62, at 7. Hunnicutt alleges, however, that Valeriano mishandled the grievance process, and that Lea County Correctional Major Richardson, Warden Smith, and prison director Franco failed to take corrective measures. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 62-67, at 7-8. Specifically, Richardson and the other supervisors refused to fire DeSantiago, as Hunnicutt demanded. See Amended Complaint ¶ 70, at 8.
Based on the foregoing, Hunnicutt argues that the Defendants: (i) rehoused him in retaliation for exercising his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (ii) violated the equal protection clause; and (iii) violated prison grievance procedures...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benavidez v. New Mexico
...... consequence of state action.” SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil , 666 F.3d at 685. Hunnicutt v. DeSantiago , 429 F.Supp.3d 905, 916-17 (D.N.M. 2019). . . Plaintiff. does not make any allegation that he is ......
-
Page v. Schnurr
...beyond racist remarks from one correctional officer, he does not state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. See Hunnicutt, 429 F.Supp.3d at 918. Two - MRA “Slam” Cell In Count Two, Plaintiff actually brings at least two claims that fall under the Eighth Amendment: a conditions of conf......
-
Gallegos v. State
...... . unless it is an intended consequence of state action.”. SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil , 666 F.3d at 685. See. Hunnicutt v. DeSantiago , 429 F.Supp.3d 905, 916-17. (D.N.M. 2019)(Browning, J). . . Gallegos. does not allege ......
-
Hughes v. Graham
...of racial discrimination beyond racist remarks from correctional officers, he does not state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. Id. states that the search of his cell was “targeted” and that he has been subjected to race-based retaliation. Plaintiff's factual allegations suggest tha......