King v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 11 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:16-cv-2482 |
| Parties | JIMMY R. KING, Plaintiff, v. C/O JENNINGS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Plaintiff Jimmy R. King alleges that, on November 4, 2015, and November 20, 2015, he was sexually assaulted and robbed by fellow South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF) inmate Chris Gordon. King reported the rape to Defendant Allen Chalk, who King alleges failed to conduct a thorough Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) investigation. Sometime before May 22, 2016, Defendant Jesse James ordered that King be transferred to the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (TTCC), where Gordon had also been transferred. King alleges that Gordon sexually assaulted him again on May 22, 2016, at TTCC. (Id.) King further alleges that, on June 13, 2016, Defendant Edward Wilkes allowed Gordon into King's unit, where Gordon sexually assaulted him twice more.
Now pending are a motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Chalk and James (Doc. No. 45), King (Doc. No. 50), and Defendant Wilkes (Doc. No. 72). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the motions for summary judgment filed by James and Chalk (Doc. No. 45) and by Wilkes (Doc. No. 72) be GRANTED, that King's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 50) be DENIED, and that the case be DISMISSED.
On September 12, 2016, King filed a complaint for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against C/O Jennings, C/O Wilkes, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), Internal Affairs and Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Administrator Chalk, Counselor Jesse James, Warden Pittman, Internal Affairs Officer Hall, Inmate Chris Gordon, and Officer Gonzalez. (Doc. No. 1.) King also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) King was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and, after conducting an initial screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), the Court ordered service of the complaint on Defendants Chalk, James, and Wilkes; dismissed Defendants Gordon, Jennings, Gonzalez, Pittman, Hall, and all claims brought against the defendants in their official capacities; and referred this action to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for case management and a report and recommendation on all dispositive motions. (Doc. No. 3.) Before any of the defendants were served, King filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 6), repeating the allegations in his original complaint and clarifying that he intended to sue Wilkes, Chalk, and James in their individual capacities. King effected service on the remaining defendants, (Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 65), who answered the amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 24, 62).1
On September 12, 2017, Chalk and James filed a motion for summary judgment and statement of undisputed material facts. (Doc. Nos. 45, 47.) In response, King filed a documentstyled "Plaintiff's Response and Motion for Summary Judgement (Rule 56) in Support." (Doc. No. 50.) King also filed a statement of facts in support of his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 52.) As his substantive response to Chalk and James's motion, King filed a declaration to which he attached his response to their statement of undisputed material facts. (Doc. No. 51.) Chalk and James filed a response in opposition to King's motion for summary judgment and a reply to King's opposition to their motion. (Doc. No. 55.) They also filed a response to King's statement of facts. (Doc. No. 56.) King filed a document styled "optional response," which appears to be his reply to Chalk and James's opposition to his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 57.)
On March 15, 2018, Wilkes filed a separate motion for summary judgment and statement of undisputed material facts. (Doc. Nos. 73, 74.) King filed a document styled "Response to Requested Defendants Summary Judgment /and Declaration of Jimmy R. King 310471" which appears to be King's opposition to Wilkes's motion. (Doc. No. 80.) King did not file a response to Wilkes's statement of undisputed material facts.
King's claims against Chalk and James relate to incidents that took place at the South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF), where they were employed at the time of the events in question. King's claims against Wilkes relate to incidents at the Turney Trousdale Correctional Center (TTCC), where Wilkes was temporarily assigned.
In his complaint and amended complaint, King alleges that, on November 4, 2015, and November 20, 2015, while he was housed at SCCF, Gordon sexually assaulted and robbed him. (Doc. No. 1, PageID# 61; Doc. No. 6, PageID# 29.) King reported the rape to "PREA Internal Affairs, but states that Chalk "did not thoroughly investigate [or] report [on his investigation]." (Id.) Sometime before May 22, 2016, James ordered that King be transferred to TTCC "eventhough [Gordon] was previously sent there." (Id.) On May 22, 2016, Gordon sexually assaulted King. (Id.) On June 13, 2016, Wilkes allowed Gordon into King's unit and into King's cell, where he sexually assaulted King at around 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Id.) King states that he was taken to the hospital and given treatment to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. (Id.) King alleges that, after Gordon was released from segregation, he was again allowed into King's unit on June 23, 2016, and threatened King. (Id. at PageID# 7.) King states that he provided biological evidence of the assaults to prison officials. (Id.)
Finally, King alleges that, on September 6, 2016, an officer who is not a defendant to this action allowed Gordon into the pod in which King was housed, placing King in danger. (Id. at PageID# 11.) King filed an emergency grievance regarding this incident, which he includes in his original complaint. (Id. at PageID# 9-10.) King requests a money damages award for his claims. (Id. at PageID# 12.)
At all relevant times, Chalk was "a mental health support advocate" at SCCF. (Doc. No. 45-1, PageID# 157, ¶ 2.) Chalk states that this position entails evaluating the mental health of inmates and, in particular, evaluating the mental health of inmates who allege that they have been sexually assaulted or abused to determine whether they need continuing mental health care. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Chalk states that he is "not in any way involved in investigating PREA allegations or determining whether an inmate's allegations are substantiated." (Id. at ¶ 5.) Chalk does not recall King, but states that he knows that he did not conduct an investigation into King's allegation that he was assaulted by Gordon because he "do[es] not conduct or participate in such investigations."(Id. at ¶ 7.) Chalk states that he "do[es] not make any decision concerning the transfer of inmates from one facility to another facility." (Id. at ¶ 8.)
James states that, at all relevant times, he was a at SCCF and served as a counselor to inmates housed in segregation, including inmates in protective custody and close custody. (Doc. No. 45-2, PageID#160, ¶ 3.) In this role, James was the person segregation inmates could contact if they had any issues or complaints. (Id.) James was not involved in PREA investigations and, if an inmate reported that he was sexually assaulted or abused, James would report this information to his supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 4.) James states that he did not make decisions regarding the transfer of inmates between facilities. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
After reviewing King's records on the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS), a computerized database used to maintain information about Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC) inmates, James noted that, on November 20, 2015, King was placed in protective custody and housed in administrative segregation. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.) King never told James why he was in protective custody or that another inmate had assaulted him. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.) James states that when an inmate made a complaint to him, he would create a "contact note" in TOMIS. (Id. at ¶ 12.) James states that "there are no contact notes entered between November 2015 and May 2016 from me concerning [King] making any complaint or comment" about sexual assault or his wish not to be transferred to the same facility as Gordon. (Id.) James states that, had King informed him that King did not want to be transferred to a facility that housed Gordon, James would have created a contact note and would have contacted the prison's Classification Coordinator about King's concerns. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
In his response in opposition to Chalk and James's motion, King states that James asked him about being transferred to TTCC and that King responded that he would need to make surethat Gordon was not housed there. (Doc. No. 51, PageID# 219, ¶ 6.) King also states that James (Id. at PageID# 229, ¶ 22.)
Eric Bryant, Assistant Warden at SCCF, submitted a declaration in support of Chalk and James's motion in which he explains the prison's PREA investigation process. (Doc. No. 45-3.) Bryant states that he is "responsible for reviewing and approving or disapproving the findings of some PREA investigations after they are concluded." (Id.) Bryant states that all PREA investigations conducted at SCCF are thoroughly documented that there are contemporaneous PREA investigation records concerning King's allegations against Gordon. (Doc. No. 45-3, PageID# 165-66, ¶¶ 2, 3, 4.) These records show that, on November 20, 2015, King stated that Gordon had forced him to perform oral sex and requested protective custody. King "immediately" underwent a complete medical evaluation to discover...
To continue reading
Request your trial