Johnson v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 2:02CV219.,CIV.A. 2:02CV219. |
| Citation | 316 F.Supp.2d 307 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Michael R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, et al., Defendants. |
Michael R. Johnson, White Deer, PA, pro se.
Noelle L. Shaw-Bell, Philip Carlton Hollowell, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, Edward Joseph McNelis, III, John David McChesney, Rawls & McNelis PC, Richmond, VA, for defendants.
This matter comes before the Court upon Eddie Pearson, Lee Givens, Officer Clinkscales, Avon Quiero, Houston Shiflett, and Rufus Fleming's (collectively "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment. Cynthia Stem ("Nurse Stem"), also a named defendant, filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff's claims. The Court has considered the memoranda of all parties, and the matter is now ripe for judicial determination without the need of a hearing.
In 1999, Eddie L. Pearson, the Warden for Sussex II State Prison2 ("SIISP"), implemented Institutional Operating Procedure ("IOP") 858, "[t]o provide uniform, written procedures for regulating smoking at [SIISP] by inmates, staff, and visitors." See Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion for SJ"), Enclosure A. The IOP acknowledged the existence of the Virginia Clean Air Act ("VCAA"), but stated that SIISP would comply with the VCAA only where "appropriate or feasible." Id. In addition, the IOP recognized that non-smokers should be placed in a non-smoking cell, but assumed no guarantee this mandate would occur. Id. In fact, the IOP conceded that "[s]mokers may be housed with a non-smoking partner," and that "security considerations for cell assignments will take priority" over any other factor. Id. Pearson signed the IOP on the same page it declared that "[t]he Warden shall hold primary responsibility for ensuring overall compliance with this Institutional Operating Procedure."3 Id.
In or around September 2001, prison officials made SIISP inmates fill out a form and state whether they considered themselves smokers or non-smokers. Complaint, p. 4b. Although Plaintiff filled out the form as a non-smoker, on December 19, 2001, Officer Clinkscales moved Plaintiff from Unit 1C Pod to Unit 4B Pod, and attempted to house him in a double cell with an inmate who smokes. Complaint, p. 4a. Plaintiff informed Officer Clinkscales that he was a non-smoker with a respiratory medical condition, and that he could not tolerate tobacco smoke. Id. Officer Clinkscales responded by giving Plaintiff an ultimatum: either go into the cell or be sent to segregation for violating a direct order. Id. Plaintiff chose to enter his cell. There, Plaintiff was subjected to being enclosed in his maximum security cell with an "habitual smoker of Black-N-Mild cigars" for 19 hours a day. Id.
On January 1, 2002, Plaintiff filed an inmate request seeking guidance on prison policy regarding housing nonsmoking inmates with those who smoke. Complaint, p. 4a. Officer Boone responded to the request by stating that "there is no policy ... to place nonsmoking [inmates] with [another] nonsmoking [inmate], but [prison officials] like to put a nonsmoking [inmate] with a nonsmoking [inmate] ... if we have the beds to do so." Complaint, p. 4b.
On January 1, 2002, Plaintiff also submitted a request for medical assistance for his exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS"), complaining of "mild headaches difficulty breathing, eye irritation, runny nose, dizziness and occasional stomach cramping," beginning from the time he was forced to live in a double cell with a smoker. Complaint, p. 4a. In addition, on December 29, 2001, Plaintiff submitted a request for medical treatment for his on-going battle with toe fungus. Nurse Cynthia Stem ("Nurse Stem") decided to see Plaintiff and address both medical complaints during one visit.4 See Brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition Brief"), p. 11; August 26, 2002 Attachments ("August Attachments"), Exhibit F. During Plaintiff's visit, Nurse Stem did not believe Plaintiff's physical ailments resulting from ETS exposure required "emergency" medical attention, and did not refer him to the attending physician. Moreover, Nurse Stem told Plaintiff that she has no power to recommend an inmate be moved. See Stem's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Stem Motion for Summary Judgment"), ¶¶ 4-5; August Attachments, Exhibit H. Nurse Stem then noted Plaintiff's complaints in his medical records. See Stem Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Medical Records.
After receiving no medical help to alleviate his conditions, Plaintiff tried the grievance route. On January 4, 2002, Plaintiff filed an informal complaint with Defendant Quiero, requesting that he be moved to a different cell, alleging that exposure to the tobacco smoke aggravated his respiratory condition. Complaint, p. 4a. Plaintiff submitted an informal grievance form on January 8, 2002, stating that he was moved into a cell with a habitual smoker, and that he would like to be moved. In addition, on January 10, 2002, Plaintiff filed a medical request form stating that he still experiences the symptoms previously mentioned, and asked Nurse Stem to make a medical recommendation that he be moved.
According to Plaintiff, the response to these grievances was far from amenable. First, Plaintiff received no written response to his grievance. Instead, on January 10, 2002, Plaintiff was reassigned to Unit 4A, "where troublemakers are primarily housed." p. 4b. In addition, prison officials again housed him in a double cell with a smoker. Plaintiff believes that his reassignment to this pod unit with another smoking cellmate is a form of retaliation for Plaintiff's "vigorous" use the prison system's grievance procedures. Second, Nurse Stem responded to Plaintiff's medical request by declaring that Complaint, p. 4b.; August Attachments, Exhibit H.
Plaintiff continued to file grievances in an attempt to be moved. On January 14, 2002, Plaintiff filed a administrative grievance requesting monetary compensation for his involuntary exposure to ETS 19 hours a day, and prison officials' retaliatory reaction to Plaintiff's use of the grievance procedure. Plaintiff followed up with another inmate cell change request filing on January 15, 2002. On his request form, Plaintiff noted that had a "respiratory condition that is aggravated by tobacco smoke." August Attachments, Exhibit K. However, neither grievance generated favorable news for Plaintiff. In response to Plaintiff's January 15th request, Officer Shiflett advised plaintiff that SIISP has a policy which attempts to accommodate nonsmokers, but making such concessions is the last factor considered in housing inmates. Complaint, p. 4b.
Mr. Pearson also formally responded to Plaintiff's two grievances. In a Level I response form, Pearson warned Plaintiff that his past refusal to enter his cell on December 19, 2001, could be viewed as disobedience to a direct order. See Defendants' Motion for SJ, Enclosure B. In addition, Pearson denied any implication that Plaintiff's move to Unit 4A constituted a retaliatory response to Plaintiff's filed grievances, but rather simply addressed "institutional needs." Id. Finally, Pearson denied Plaintiff's claims that he was seen by medical personnel to address ailments resulting from ETS, and that Plaintiff's only medical request was to examine his toe fungus. Id. Pearson then determined Plaintiff's grievance to be unfounded, which the Regional Director ("Mr.Fleming") upheld on appeal. See Defendants' Motion for SJ, Enclosure B.
On March 17, 2002, Plaintiff contacted D.C. Prisoner's Legal Services Project, Inc., and informed them of his predicament. Legal Services responded by sending a letter to Warden Pearson informing him of, inter alia, Plaintiff's problems stemming from Pearson's refusal to assign him and other inmates nonsmoking cells. August Attachments, Exhibit O. On March 28, 2002, Plaintiff then filed a Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with the Court, alleging that SIISP's policy and procedures were being disregarded by prison officials. Plaintiff also claimed that prison officials' decision to place him in a cell with a habitual cigar smoker for 19 hours a day, coupled with their deliberate indifference to his complaints about the risks of present and future medical harms, constituted a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. In addition, Plaintiff claimed that medical personnel failed to seriously address his complaints regarding his exposure to ETS, also a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Less than a week after filing his § 1983 claim, prison officials transferred custody of Plaintiff to D.C. authorities.
After being transferred, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 13, 2002. All defendants named in the complaint, other than Nurse Stem, filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2003. Nurse Stem filed her own Motion for Summary Judgment on September 22, 2003. Plaintiff responded to both motions on October 23, 2003. The Court has considered the memoranda filed by the parties, and the matter is now ripe for judicial determination.
Defendants and Nurse Stem requests summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. Rule 56(c) provides for summary judgment if the Court, viewing the record as a whole, determines "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." F ED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In deciding a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Puckett v. City of Portsmouth, Civil Action No. 2:03cv747.
...burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 265; Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307, 313 (E.D.Va.2004). The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of an essential element of the nonmoving party's case and ......
-
Cuffee v. Tidewater Community College
...burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 265; Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307, 313 (E.D.Va.2004). The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of an essential element of the nonmoving party's case and ......
-
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 265; Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307, 313 (E.D.Va.2004). The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of an essential element of the nonmoving party's case and ......
-
Lewis v. City of Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office
...burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Hooven-Lewis, 249 F.3d at 265; Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307, 313 (E.D.Va.2004). The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of an essential element of the nonmoving party's case and ......
-
Johnson v. Pearson.
...District Court SMOKING Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va. 2004). A prisoner brought a civil rights action under [section] 1983 against state prison officials, alleging that they acted with deliberate indifference to his risk of medical harm when they refused to assign him to a n......
-
Johnson v. Pearson.
...District Court SMOKING Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D. Va. 2004). A prisoner brought a civil rights action under [section] 1983 against state prison officials, alleging that they acted with deliberate indifference to his risk of medical harm when they refused to assign him to a ......
-
Johnson v. Pearson.
...District Court SMOKE Johnson v. Pearson, 316 F.Supp.2d 307 (E.D.Va. 2004). A prisoner brought a civil rights action under [section] 1983 against state prison officials, alleging that they acted with deliberate indifference to his risk of medical harm when they refused to assign him to a non......