Joyner v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 06 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | C/A No. 0:13-2675-DCN-PJG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Benjamin A. Joyner, Plaintiff, v. Sharon Patterson, disciplinary hearing officer; Mike McCall, Warden, Lee Correctional Institution; Linda Johnson, Inmate Grievance Coordinator; Ann Hallman, Chief Inmate Grievance Branch; B. Reames, Classification Case Manager; Ms. McNair, Administrative Segregation Case Worker; William R. Byars, Agency Director; James E. Sleigh, Jr., Division Director of Operations; James C. Dean, Major of Security; Officer Locklear, Security; Sargeant Roach, Security; Lieutenant Miles, Security; Associate Warden S. Nolan; All defendants except the Agency director is being sued in their individual capacities; William R. Byars is being sued in his official capacity, Defendants. |
The plaintiff, Benjamin A. Joyner ("Plaintiff"), a self-represented state prisoner, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This civil rights matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against each defendant; injunctive relief against Defendant William Byars, Agency Director; and declaratory relief as to Defendant Associate Warden S. Nolan. Having reviewed the Complaint, as amended (hereafter, the Complaint), in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes that it should be summarily dismissed.
Plaintiff's claims stem mostly from alleged violations of South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC") protocol and due process in his placements. He states that, on August 12, 2012, he was not placed in administrative segregation but, rather, in disciplinary detention, thus being disciplined before being afforded a disciplinary hearing or a pre-detention hearing. (ECF No. 1 at 12, 13.) Because he was in disciplinary detention, Plaintiff alleges that he was treated the same as a prisoner in security detention, although he was not designated a security threat. (Id. at 15-16.) Plaintiff claims, (Id. at 22-23) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-72 (1983)). He also contends that he was not provided a "19-69" or other notice for "the reason for [his] assignment to administrative segregation." (ECF No. 1 at 34) (citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 11 (1980)).
Plaintiff adds that he was not afforded a "19-67" form (pre-hearing detention form), or a pre-hearing detention or ICC board hearing, and thus "was illegally confined in disciplinary detention for punitive reasons" in violation of Hewitt v. Helms, (ECF No. 1 at 51, 52.) Further, he was never subject to any periodic reviews, in violation of SCDC policies. (Id. at 68-69.)
Plaintiff states that he received a disciplinary charge on August 31, 2012, and appeared at an informal hearing on September 11, 2012, before Defendant Sharon Patterson, a disciplinary hearing officer. (ECF No. 1 at 24.) Patterson allegedly conducted the hearing with several violations of SCDC procedure and of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Plaintiff attended additional hearings before Patterson on September 18 and 19, 2012, and he alleges that she again violated SCDC procedure and Wolff. (Id. at 28-41.) As sanctions, Plaintiff received 360 days ofdisciplinary detention and 760 days' loss of canteen, phone and visitation privileges. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Mike McCall, Warden, was complicit as he affirmed Patterson's actions. (Id. at 70-88.)
Plaintiff additionally claims that "[t]he defendants . . . placed me in disciplinary detention . . . to deny me visitation with my family," describing this prohibition as a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free of the arbitrary imposition of cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 1 at 127.) He also alleges retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment in being denied his mattress—at the direction of Warden McCall—in retaliation for filing a grievance against the Warden. (Id. at 135-37.) Plaintiff contends that, the following day, he was "sore and in severe pain." (Id. at 137.) He complains that he was disciplined without any due process, and that there is no written policy allowing for taking an inmate's mattress. Plaintiff avers that he has a liberty interest in "not being subject to disciplinary sanctions without notice of the specific rule or regulation he is deemed to have violated." (Id. at 146.) At sick call, Plaintiff received a fifteen-day supply of pain relievers for his back and thigh discomfort. Lastly, Plaintiff charges each defendant with causing "pain and suffering and emotional distress" due to their "callous indifference to plaintiff's constitutional rights." (Id. at 196-98.)
Plaintiff claims that either Defendant Associate Warden S. Nolan or Defendant Patterson "illegally" held for thirty days the "Golden Rod" copy of his disciplinary hearing report which, per SCDC policy, the inmate is required to be provided at the conclusion of his hearing. (ECF No. 13.) This is allegedly proved by Nolan's signature thereto. Because Plaintiff received his copy so late, he was unable to effectively challenge his disciplinary hearing and resulting sanctions. Plaintiff claims that this is a violation of his rights to due process and "to file nonfrivolous grievances and lawsuits." (Id. at 5.)
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). This review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," "is frivolous or malicious," or "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolousness can be made where the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Hence, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, id.; Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal district court ischarged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so; however, a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999), construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993), or "conjure up questions never squarely presented" to the court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
The Complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)). A civil action under § 1983 "creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of 'rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1501 (2012). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiffmust allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that a plaintiff must do more than...
To continue reading
Request your trial