Loyde v. Wilkes

• Decision Date: 31 May 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:16-cv-00758
• Parties: MACK MANDRELL LOYDE #479167, Plaintiff, v. TONY WILKES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

MACK MANDRELL LOYDE #479167, Plaintiff,
v.
TONY WILKES, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00758

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

May 31, 2016

Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Mack Mandrell Loyde, an inmate who was until recently in the custody of the Davidson County Sheriff, has filed a pro se complaint against several members of the jail staff for alleged violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is before the court for an initial review pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1916(e)(2) and 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

I. Standard of Review

Under the PLRA, the court must conduct an initial review of any civil complaint brought by a prisoner if it is filed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), seeks relief from government entities or officials, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, or challenges the prisoner's conditions of confinement, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Upon conducting this review, the court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, is frivolous, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Sixth Circuit has confirmed that the dismissal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), "governs dismissals for failure to state a claim under those statutes because the relevant statutory language tracks the language in Rule 12(b)(6)." Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, to survive scrutiny on

Page 2

initial review, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

In reviewing the complaint to determine whether it states a plausible claim, "a district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). A pro se pleading must be liberally construed and "held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

II. Factual Allegations

The plaintiff alleges that he has an extensive history of mental health problems and has spent some time on suicide watch in jail. (ECF No. 1, at 7-8.) He alleges that, after his release from suicide watch, he again became extremely depressed and suicidal and submitted multiple sick call forms and requests that his psychiatric medications be re-prescribed. (Id.) The plaintiff alleges that the mental health program manager, Defendant VarDell, denied all of his requests, apparently without seeing him. (ECF No. 1, at 8.) He alleges that he tried to seek help from the jail administrator, Defendant Bodie, who replied that the plaintiff would not be "the first or last" to kill himself and walked away. (Id.) Days later, the plaintiff attempted suicide and was finally seen by medical and placed back on suicide watch. (Id.) He asked for psychiatric medication and to see a psychologist, but Defendant VarDell again refused all of his requests. (ECF No. 1, at 8-9.)

The plaintiff alleges that, on March 11, 2016, he and a fellow inmate were accused of engaging in homosexual activity because they had a sheet hanging from the top bunk in the cell

Page 3

they were in. (ECF No. 1, at 4.) Although the accusation was investigated and found to be unfounded, with no evidence to establish "any type of sexual activity," the classification manager, Defendant Gentry, still listed plaintiff and his friend as "incompatible" inmates to be kept separated. (ECF No. 1, at 4-5.) When the plaintiff complained that other inmates who had hung sheets, clothes and towels from their bunks did not receive the same treatment, Defendant Gentry told him "I don't have to explain my actions or reasons because no known homosexual is going to hang around you for free, I know how slick and sneaky they can be, which is why I'm going to separate you both before anything happens," (ECF No. 1, at 5-6), and to "just stay away from those type of people and you'll be fine." (ECF No. 1, at 6.) She also threatened him that, "if you don't stop crying and complaining then I'll move your ass to the 'hole' on the 5^th floor . . . where your enemies are." (Id.)

The plaintiff alleges that he complained about the situation to Defendant Bodie, who also threatened him that if he "pursued this complaint," he would either be "moved to the 'hole' on the 5^th floor" or that his "little friend," referring to the fellow inmate, "would find himself moved into a pod filled with wolves." (ECF No. 1, at 7.)

Plaintiff alleges that after that incident, Defendants De Moss, Kidd, Conrad, Farley, Rickman and Pallak began "targeting" and "sexually harassing" him. (ECF No. 1, at 9.) Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he is subjected to unnecessary restrictions, including a water restriction, and that the defendants refuse to deliver him drinking water if he complains of mistreatment. (ECF No. 1, at 9-10.) Defendant Farley has also suggested that the plaintiff cannot truly be a Muslim because he is friends with a homosexual, and went on to say "that isn't normal and until you choose a side, you ain't getting nothing from me." (ECF No. 1, at 14-15.)

The plaintiff further alleges that defendants Bodie and Johnson assigned him to be housed in the suicide watch area permanently, ostensibly due to his behavior (including the alleged destruction of a sprinkler head) and alleged high security risk, although inmates with worse behavior have received better treatment. (ECF No. 1, at 10-11, 16.)

Page 4

The "normal response" of Defendants Kidd, Farley, Bodie and Johnson to his complaints about his conditions is to threaten to move him to the 5^th floor with his "enemies." (ECF No. 1, at 16-17.) When he complains about not getting his religious diet, Defendants Farley and Kidd threaten to move him "behind the cage." (ECF No. 1, at 17.)

Much of the plaintiff's complaint relates to the conditions of his confinement since being placed on permanent suicide watch in a cell that he describes as a "real health hazard." (ECF No. 1, at 11.) The plaintiff alleges that the walls, floor and vents are all smeared with feces and urine, that there is mold in the walls, and that it has no running water for drinking, bathing or brushing his teeth. (Id.) The plaintiff alleges that he made Defendants Bodie and Johnson aware of the condition of the cell, but that Bodie told him he "would have to deal with" the situation. (Id.) Bodie has imposed property restrictions on him that prevent him from having hygiene supplies, typical clothing, or a mattress. Because the plaintiff does not have a table or stool in his cell, he is "forced to lay all of [his] clothes, legal documents, on the feces and urine smeared floor by the toilet." (ECF No. 1, at 16.) Plaintiff alleges that Bodie has responded to his complaints about conditions by threatening to move him to the 5^th floor or "behind the cage." (Id.) At the time of drafting his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he had not been permitted to shower in 16 days and had developed a rash. (ECF No. 1, at 11, 13, 14.)

The plaintiff alleges that he was "kept on lockdown well over 5 days." (ECF No. 1, at 11.) He alleges that the lights in the cell are on 24 hours a day, hurting his eyes and preventing him from sleeping, but that Defendants Bodie and Johnson told him just to put a cover over his head. (ECF No. 1, at 12.)

According to the plaintiff, he has been denied a form to submit a grievance, and Defendant Bodie has instructed all jail staff, including medical and mental health staff, to have no communication whatsoever with the plaintiff, and to prevent any communication between him and any other inmates. (ECF No. 1, at 11-12.) His recreation is limited to time alone on the roof, on instruction from Defendants Bodie and Johnson, and he is denied access to any

Page 5

vocational or educational classes. (ECF No. 1, at 17, 18.)

The plaintiff alleges that, "under guidance of and with full authorization from" Defendants Wilkes (chief of corrections), Bodie, Johnson and Gentry, he is being treated like "lesser than a human being and worse than an animal." (ECF No. 1, at 16.) The plaintiff alleges that he has gone on hunger strikes to protest his mistreatment. (Id.)

The plaintiff alleges that his Islamic faith requires him to wash himself in connection with his five daily prayers, which he is prevented from doing. (ECF No. 1, at 14.) He...