Jenkins v. Hutcheson

• Decision Date: 29 December 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-50
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
• Parties: ADRIAN JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR JOSEPH HUTCHESON; DEPUTY WARDEN DOUG WILLIAMS; and WARDEN BRUCE CHATMAN, Defendants.

ADRIAN JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR JOSEPH HUTCHESON; DEPUTY WARDEN DOUG WILLIAMS;and WARDEN BRUCE CHATMAN, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-50

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

December 29, 2015

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Hancock State Prison in Sparta, Georgia, submitted a Complaint in the above captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, who are officers at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint relates to another action that Plaintiff filed in this Court and which is still pending, Jenkins v. Hutcheson, 6:14-cv-81 (S.D. Ga. July 13, 2014) (hereinafter referred to as "Jenkins I"). In Jenkins I, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Joseph Hutcheson, a correctional officer, assaulted Plaintiff while escorting him at Smith State Prison. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants destroyed the video tape of this incident. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-12.)

The Court has conducted the requisite frivolity review of that Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims in their entirety for failure to state a claim. In addition, the Court should DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND¹

In his Complaint in this action, Plaintiff explains that he has sued Defendant Hutcheson in Jenkins I, for "the wrongful use of excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights." (Id. at p. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chatham, the Warden of Georgia State Prison, and Defendant Williams, the Deputy Warden, had a duty to review and preserve the videotape of the use of force pursuant to the Prison's standard operating procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that the videotape should have been preserved for three years. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) He goes on to allege that Defendants have failed to preserve the video evidence and, as a result, Defendant Hutcheson and his witnesses have been able to fabricate their version of events. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Plaintiff contends that the failure to preserve the video tape has caused him actual harm by depriving him of the only reliable source of evidence. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) He contends that by failing to preserve the tape, Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Id.at pp. 11-12.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets and shows an inability to pay the filing fee and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that isfrivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

When reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is guided by the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) "if it is 'without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App'x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also "accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.") (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("We have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.").

DISCUSSION

I. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim.

By filing the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff does not merely seek an adverse inference or other sanction on his claims pending in Jenkins I. Instead, he seeks to bring an independent cause of action against Defendants for the spoliation of the video tape under Section 1983. In order to state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must satisfy two elements. First, a plaintiff must allege that an act or omission deprived him "of some right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Second, a plaintiff must allege that the act or omission was committed by "a person acting under color of state law." Id.

Plaintiff attempts to satisfy the first element by conclusively alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to preserve the videotape. However, the Court is not aware of any case that has found that the destruction of evidence amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, courts assess factual allegations such as those brought by Plaintiff under the fundamental right to access the courts.

Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Graham v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 804 F.2d 953 (6th Cir. 1986) ("It is beyond dispute that the right of access to the courts is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.").² "Thus, interference with the right of court access by state agents who intentionally conceal the true facts about a crime may be actionable as a deprivation of constitutional rights." Chappell, 340 F.3d at 1283.

"However, even the intentional destruction of legal material by prison officials does not, standing alone, establish a constitutional interference claim." Williams v. Langford, No. 2:13-CV-315-FTM-38CM, 2015 WL 8479220, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2015). Rather, in order to bring a claim for denial of access to the courts, the inmate must establish that he suffered an actual injury to a non-frivolous claim as a result of the defendants' alleged interference. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; see also Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998).

An "actual injury" does not occur "without a showing that such a claim has been lost or rejected, or that the presentation of such a claim is currently being prevented." Root v. Towers, 238 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354-56). In other words, a plaintiff who claims that his access to the courts was interfered with fails to state a claim unless he shows prejudice to his litigation. Based on this principle, courts frequently dismiss Section 1983 claims for the destruction of evidence, particularly when the plaintiff has an ongoing lawsuit through which any destruction of evidence could be remedied. See, e.g., Hunt v. City of Cleveland, 563 F. App'x 404, 410 (6th Cir. 2014) ("Because Hunt has not shown that the alleged destruction of evidence cannot be addressed adequately by the Ohio state courts in the context of his [ongoing state litigation], he has failed to show a denial of access."); Chappell, 340 F.3d at 1283-84("Although access to the concealed evidence might have strengthened their case, the [plaintiffs] do not allege that they were or would have been prevented from filing a wrongful death suit within the statute of limitations period, nor that the Defendants' actions would have made such a suit inadequate, ineffective, or not meaningful."); Joyce v. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56, 57 (6th Cir.1986) (rejecting denial-of-access claim based upon police cover-up when there was "no reason to believe that an Ohio court and jury would be unavailable and would not do justice between the parties"); Bratt v....