Jackson v. Eplin
| Decision Date | 10 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:20-cv-00864 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY S. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT EPLIN (District Manager); MARK ELSWICK (Supervisor); JEFF A. STINNETT, Superintendent; KATHY SMITH, Job Coordinator; BRIAN GREENWOOD; DANTE CLARK; JENNIFER HENDERSON, DOC; and CHARLESTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER AND JAIL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Timothy Jackson's complaint and amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 2, 21, 30, 32, 54, 63, 66). This matter is assigned to the Honorable Robert C. Chambers, United States District Judge, and by standing order is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for the submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge GRANT the motion to dismiss filedby Defendant Charleston Correctional Center and Jail, (ECF No. 21); DENY the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Clark, Greenwood, Henderson, Smith, and Stinnett, (ECF No. 32); DENY, in part, and GRANT, in part, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Elswick and Eplin, (ECF No. 30); GRANT the motion to dismiss of Scott Eplin, (ECF No. 63); and GRANT the motion to dismiss of Dante Clark and Jeff A. Stinnett, (ECF No. 66). The undersigned additionally recommends that the presiding District Judge DISMISS, with prejudice, the complaints, (ECF Nos. 2, 54), against Defendants Charleston Correctional Center and Jail, Scott Eplin, Jeff A. Stinnett, and Dante Clark and REMOVE these individuals from the style of the case, while allowing discovery to proceed against the remaining defendants.
Timothy Jackson filed the instant complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 23, 2020. (ECF No. 2). The suit arises out of a series of incidents that began on June 18, 2019. (Id. at 4). According to Jackson, on that date, while he was working for the Department of Highways ("DOH") through the work release program offered by the Charleston Correctional Center and Jail ("CCC"), Defendant Mark Elswick assigned him to work on a steep hillside near the interstate bridge in Huntington, West Virginia. (Id.). Jackson protested this assignment, noting that pins in both of his ankles made him unable to do "that kind of work." (Id. at 4). He was compelled to work on the hillside anyway, and subsequently fell and broke an ankle pin. (Id.).
On June 23, 2019, Elswick "fired" Jackson from the Department of Highways. (Id. at 5). Subsequently, Defendant Kathy Smith, the work release job coordinator, "wrote [Jackson] up" for refusing to work despite Jackson having provided Smith withmedical proof of his injury. Jackson had a disciplinary hearing before Defendant Brian Greenwood, who refused to consider Jackson's pre-existing medical condition or his subsequent on-the-job injury. Greenwood found Jackson guilty of the disciplinary charge, which resulted in Jackson being "sent to a maximum security facility" and placed in "the hole," or administrative segregation, for 60 days. (Id. at 5-6). He further alleges that Defendant Clark, later identified as Dannette Clark, arranged an appointment with an orthopedic specialist for Jackson, but he was prevented from going to this appointment by Defendant Jennifer Henderson. (Id. at 6). Defendants Henderson and Clark also allegedly prevented Jackson from seeking medical treatment at "health right care." (Id.). Jackson contends that once he arrived at Huttonsville Correctional Center he attempted to appeal the adverse disciplinary action, but the warden, Defendant Jeff A. Stinnett, "denied it and refused to look into my situation." (Id. at 7). For relief, Jackson asks for $200,000.00 for emotional distress caused by his sixty-day period in solitary confinement and $200,000.00 for pain, suffering, and emotional distress caused by the denial of medical treatment, as well as punitive damages. (Id. at 5).
On April 20, 2021, Jackson filed an amended pleading. (ECF No. 54). In this document, he provides additional factual allegations against Defendants Elswick, Smith, Greenwood and Henderson. Jackson contends that on the day Defendant Elswick assigned him to work on the aforementioned steep hillside, it had been raining and the hillside was "extremely muddy," causing Jackson to fall and become injured, after which he was fired. (Id. at 1). He asks for $1 million in punitive damages for this incident. (Id.).
As to Defendant Smith, Jackson claims she abused her power by punishing him for refusing to work even after he explained and offered proof of his injury. (Id.). According to Jackson, Defendant Greenwood likewise abused his power by sentencingJackson to 60 days of administrative segregation and moving him to a higher-security facility. (Id. at 1-2). Defendant Henderson allegedly abused her power by refusing to allow Jackson to attend a medical appointment or obtain emergency care when his foot swelled up. (Id. at 2). He seeks $1 million in punitive damages from Defendants Smith, Greenwood, and Henderson. (Id.). Of note, Jackson does not include any allegations against the CCC, or Defendants Eplin, Clark, and Stinnett in the amended pleading. (Id.).
The defendants in this matter, each of whom is employed by or is otherwise connected to the State of West Virginia, have responded. Defendant CCC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as did Defendants Elswick and Eplin ("DOH Defendants"). (ECF Nos. 21, 30). Defendant Eplin also filed a second motion to dismiss, seeking disposal of the amended complaint. (ECF No. 63). Defendants Clark, Greenwood, Henderson, Smith, and Stinnett ("DCR Defendants") filed a joint motion for summary judgment as to the complaint, and Defendants Clark and Stinnett filed a separate, additional motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 32, 66). The motions, responses, and replies are summarized below.
On January 25, 2021, Defendant CCC filed a motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum of law on the basis that it cannot be sued under § 1983 because it is merely a building and not a "person" for the purposes of that statute. (ECF Nos. 21, 22). On February 8, 2021, Jackson responded to this motion, countering that he is not suing a building but is suing the warden "for allowing his staff to abuse their power." (ECF No. 28). He further contends that the CCC charges for rent and laundry services and has asource of income. (Id.). Following a motion hearing, Defendant CCC submitted a supplemental memorandum of law explaining that the correct title of the facility is the Charleston Correctional Center and Jail and stating that it is owned and operated by the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("DCR"); therefore, it is ineligible for suit under § 1983. (ECF No. 43). On April 20, 2021, Jackson filed a supplement to his original pleadings which excluded Defendant CCC from the list of named defendants. (ECF No. 54).
On January 22, 2021, the DCR Defendants filed an answer to Jackson's complaint, asserting twenty-three defenses and demanding a jury trial. (ECF No. 13). On February 11, 2021, the DCR Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and accompanying memorandum of law. (ECF Nos. 32, 33). First, the DCR Defendants assert that they are not "persons" under § 1983 because they are agents of the State of West Virginia, which is not subject to suit. (ECF No. 33 at 4). They also claim that Jackson's complaint must be dismissed because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. at 4-7). In response, Jackson contends that he could not exhaust his administrative remedies because he "was not provided with the needed forms to file an appeal of his grievance after his appeal was rejected" by Defendant Stinnett. (ECF No. 35 at 1). In reply, the DCR Defendants argue that Jackson's contention is without merit because he admitted in his complaint that he did not file a grievance. (ECF No. 37 at 1). Further, the DCR Defendants assert that no additional form is required to take an appeal from an adverse grievance decision and that, if such a form were required, it would have been available to Jackson. (Id. at 2).
On March 17, 2021, the undersigned issued an order informing Jackson of his right and obligation to file a response demonstrating a factual dispute pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). (ECF No. 40). On March 30, 2021, Jackson responded to the order. (ECF No. 45). He contends that he was not given a choice of paperwork by the "jail counselor," and wonders how he could have been "expected to file under a more correct statute when the counselor only hands out one packet." (Id. at 1). Jackson also states that after Defendant Stinnett denied his appeal, Jackson was not given a chance to respond because he had been placed in administrative segregation and by the time he was released, "the amount of time for further appeal had passed" and there "was no way for [Jackson] to file any sort of grievance or appeal, nor was he advised of any way to proceed." (Id. at 1-2).
After Jackson filed his amended pleading, two of the DCR Defendants, Dante Clark and Jeff A. Stinnett, filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 66). Clark and Stinnett point out that, while they are named in the amended complaint, Jackson includes no factual allegations implicating them. (ECF No. 67 at 5). These defendants further reiterate their argument that Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies; therefore, his complaint should be summarily dismissed. (Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial