Jacoby v. Mack
| Decision Date | 21 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION:13-00070-KD-B |
| Parties | BRENT JACOBY (#291560) Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF HUEY MACK, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis filed a complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is now before the court on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 55, 68, 69, 70). After careful consideration of the motions, and the documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, and for the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are granted and Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice.
As a preliminary matter, the undersigned observes that Plaintiff Jacoby is a frequent litigator. He filed four complaints, including the instant one, while incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Baldwin County Jail1. See Jacoby v.Baldwin County Jail, Civ. No. 12-00197-WS-M (hereinafter referenced as "Jacoby I"), 2013 WL 2285108, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72212 (S.D. Ala. May 7, 2013), Jacoby v. Mack, Civ. No. 12-00366-CG-C, 2014 WL 2435655, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74768 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 14, 2014) (hereinafter referenced as "Jacoby II"), Jacoby v. Baldwin County, Civ. No. 12-00640-CG-N, 2014 WL 2641834, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81477 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 18, 2014) (hereinafter referenced as "Jacoby III"). Some of the claims that Jacoby seeks to raise in this action have already been considered and rejected in the earlier filed actions2. In fact, all of Jacoby's claims in each of those actions were dismissed after it was determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
From its review of the record, the Court summarizes the material factual allegations in this case in the light mostfavorable to Jacoby.3 At all times relevant to his complaint in this action, Jacoby was incarcerated at the Baldwin County Correctional Facility as a pre-trial detainee. (Doc. 1 at 12). Jacoby arrived at the facility in October 20ll, and was transferred from the facility, and into the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections upon his convictions for Third Degree Burglary in October 2013. (Jacoby I, Doc. 98 at 2);(Doc. 39 at 4); www.doc.state.us/inmateHistoryaspxary (last visited on March 14, 2016.).
On January 6, 2013, prison officials received a tip that there was tobacco in the block occupied by Jacoby and other inmates. (Doc. 32-3 at 3-4). This prompted a block search by staff. (Id.). During the search, tobacco was found taped to a string and hanging down a doorframe, concealed from view. (Id.) This tobacco was accessible to Jacoby and other inmates. (Id.). Sgt. Lovett ordered all inmates who could be implicated in this incident, including Jacoby, to be taken to administrative segregation while the investigation was completed. (Id.). Thegeneral policy of the facility mandates that any inmate who might be implicated in an offense is to be placed in administrative segregation for the safety and security of the facility during an ongoing investigation. (Id.).
The following day, January 7, 2013, Sgt. Lovett was informed that Jacoby was being disruptive in his cell in administrative segregation by repeatedly kicking the cell door, and was refusing to follow instructions to stop. (Docs. 32-3 at 4; Doc. 32-7 at 10). At the time, Jacoby had been at the facility for nearly a year and a half, and during this period, he had been found with contraband on multiple occasions, he had numerous confrontations with prison staff, and he had attempted to harm himself with a razor on at least two occasions. (Jacoby I, Doc. 64 at 3-5; Jacoby II, Doc. 71 at 2-3, Jacoby III, Doc. 74 at 35). Fully aware of Jacoby's disruptive history, Sgt. Lovett sent officers to Jacoby's cell and instructed the Corporal on the shift to use pepper spray if Jacoby continued to be combative and refused to follow instructions. (Doc. 32-3 at 4).
A video of the incident shows a gathering of five or six officers walking and discussing "handling business". (Doc. 32-8.) As officers approach and unlock the cell door, severalinmates can be seen exiting the cell, and one inmate is seen couched on his knees on the floor. Officers yell for the inmate to get down, and then two officers move in, with one quickly spraying the inmate, who is identified as Jacoby, in the direction of the back of his head. Jacoby is taken to the floor and the officers place Jacoby's hands behind his back, and handcuff him. (Id.). Jacoby is then placed on his feet, and officers proceed to escort him down a hallway. They reach a closet sink, bend him over, and rinse his face and the back of his head with water. Jacoby, who is clad is short pants, is then placed in a restraint chair. At points during the encounter, Jacoby is yelling about the use of spray and threatening to sue the officers involved. The entire video lasts approximately six minutes.(Id.)
On January 27, 2013, a routine search for contraband was performed. (Doc. 32-3 at 5; Doc. 32-7). A 1.5 pound block of crushed soap was found in Jacoby's possession in violation of contraband policy. (Doc. 32-3 at 5; Doc. 32-6; Doc. 32-7). The soap was confiscated and Jacoby was charged with violating the prison's weapon's policy because the crushed soap could easily be used as a weapon, to hide other contraband such as razors, and to attempt to vandalize property. (Id.). On February 4,2013, a disciplinary hearing was conducted, Jacoby was found guilty, and he was confined to segregation for thirty days. (Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 38-1).
In the instant petition, which was filed on February 14, 20144, Jacoby asserts claims against Baldwin County Sheriff Huey "Hoss" Mack, Captain Jimmie Bennett, Sgt. Janie Lovett, Cpl. ReNisha Spencer, Officer McCants and Cpl. Winky for the incidents described above. Jacoby complains that he was subjected to inhumane conditions in segregation because segregation is overcrowded such that three inmates were forced to sleep in cells designed for one to two persons, and he was "forced to sleep with urine splattering on him, on his sheets with pubic hairs, body hairs, and dirt all over him for 3 days because he was forced to sleep on the floor". (Doc. 1 at 5).
Jacoby also contends he was "denied outside recreation for 3 days, periodicals to read, and the opportunity to purchase hygiene products" while in segregation due to BCSCC's policy "to not allow inmates to go to recreation, having reading materials, and purchase grooming products in segregation." (Id.). Hefurther avers that he was placed in segregation due to the contraband of another inmate, and that he is a "serious to severe mentally ill inmate and should not be housed under these extreme conditions." (Doc. 1 at 6). Jacoby also contends that during the January 7, 2013 incident, he was sprayed with pepper spray for no reason while he laid on the ground without a shirt, shoes, or socks, and that he was placed in a restraint chair and left for "8 ½ hours strapped down screaming in agony for water and out of pain" which also caused him to "urinate [] on himself because he was not allowed to go to the bathroom." (Doc. 1 at 6-8). He further claims that he was denied due process because he was not provided adequate notice of the February 4 disciplinary hearing, and the hearing was not recorded. (Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 38-1).
According to Jacoby, each of these incidents reflects the policy and customs of Defendants Sheriff Mack and Captain Bennett in supervising the BCSCC facility. (Doc. 1 at 9). Additionally, Jacoby claims that Sgt. Lovett is retaliating against him due to his continued filing of grievances and lawsuits. (Doc. 1 at 9). Jacoby requested, and was granted permission to file an amended complaint on December 5, 2014 in order to name Defendants McCants and Winky, who had beenpreviously identified in the complaint as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2. (Docs 45, 49).
Defendants Spencer, Bennett, Mack, and Lovett filed an Answer and Special Report disputing Jacoby's claims. (Docs. 32, 33). Defendants contend that Jacoby's claims are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, as well as by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because he has not suffered a physical injury as a result of the allegations in his amended complaint. They also argue that any claims against Defendants in their official capacity should fail due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that claims brought against them in their individual capacities should also fail because Jacoby cannot show a violation of a clearly established right.5 (Doc. 32 at 13-24). According to Defendants, Jacoby's claims of excessive force, inadequate conditions of confinement, due process violation, retaliation, and policy and procedure claims fail on their merits6. (Id. at 24-37).
The Court entered an order notifying the parties that Defendants Spencer, Bennett, Mack, and Lovett's Answer and Special Report were being converted into a motion or summary judgment, and giving the parties an opportunity to file briefs in support or opposition. (Doc. 56). However, before the conversion order was entered, Jacoby filed a response in opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Doc. 39). The two later added Defendants, Winky and McCants, filed their Special Report and Answer on February 8, 2016. (Docs. 68, 69). The Court entered an order notifying the parties that Winky and McCants' Answer and Special Report were being converted into a motion or summary judgment, and giving them an opportunity to file briefs in support or opposition. (Doc. 70).
The motions are now ripe for consideration7.
Summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc...
To continue reading
Request your trial