Morris v. Eversley

• Decision Date: 23 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 00 Civ. 8166(DC).,00 Civ. 8166(DC).
• Citation: 282 F.Supp.2d 196
• Parties: Beatrice MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert EVERSLEY, Officer of the Bayview Correctional Center, in his official and individual capacities, Alexandreena Dixon, Superintendent of Bayview Correctional Facility, in her official and individual capacities, and Elnora Porter, Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Programs of Bayview Correctional Facility, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Page 196

282 F.Supp.2d 196

Beatrice MORRIS, Plaintiff, v.Gilbert EVERSLEY, Officer of the Bayview Correctional Center, in his official and individual capacities, Alexandreena Dixon, Superintendent of Bayview Correctional Facility, in her official and individual capacities, and Elnora Porter, AssistantDeputySuperintendent of Programs of Bayview Correctional Facility, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 00 Civ. 8166(DC).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

September 23, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, by Scott A. Edelman, Esq., Courtney E. Scott, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Eliot Spitzer, Esq., Attorney General of the State of New York, by Jose L. Velez, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION

CHIN, District Judge.

In this case, plaintiffBeatrice Morris alleges that while she was incarcerated at Bayview Correctional Facility ("Bayview"), defendantGilbert Eversley, a correctional officer, entered her cell one night and sexually assaulted her.Morris contends that Eversley's conduct is but one example of an ongoing pattern and practice at Bayview of male correctional officers engaging in sexual contact with female prisoners.By law, any such conduct would be improper, as inmates are deemed incapable of consenting to sexual contact with prison employees.Morris further contends that the supervisors were aware of the inappropriate and prevalent sexual conduct at Bayview because of the number of complaints lodged by female prisoners and one instance where an inmate became pregnant.Despite this knowledge, Morris claims, Bayview supervisors failed to act.

Morris brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated her rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and state law.DefendantsAlexandreena Dixon and Elnora Porter move for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1)they are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment;(2)they were not "personally involved" in the alleged assault, and therefore are not subject to supervisory liability under § 1983; and (3)they are entitled to qualified immunity.For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

A.Facts

1.The Parties

Morris was incarcerated at Bayview for approximately three months, from March 1999 to June 1999.(Morris Dep.at 13).She was then transferred to the Taconic Correctional Facility ("Taconic"), from which she was released on November 15, 2000.(Id. at 13-14).

Eversley was employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services("DOCS") as a correctional officer and was assigned to Bayview at the time of the alleged assault in April 1999.(SeePorterAff. ¶ 2;Morris Dep.at 43-45, 53-54;Werbacher Dep.at 11, 135).

Dixon, another DOCS employee, was the Superintendent of Bayview from August 1990 to December 1998.(DixonAff. ¶ 1;Dixon Dep.at 8).She then became the Superintendent of Edgecombe Correctional Facility ("Edgecombe") from December 1998 to December 1999, after which she became the Superintendent of Taconic, a position she currently holds.(DixonAff. ¶ 1).

Porter, also employed by DOCS, was the Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Bayview from October 1998 to October 2001.(PorterAff. ¶ 1;Porter Dep.at 8).In that role, she was in charge of all the program areas and supervised the librarians, educational program teachers, guidance counselors, and recreation area staff.(Porter Dep.at 11-12;PorterAff. ¶ 3).In November 2001, Porter became the Deputy Superintendent of Programs at Edgecombe.(PorterAff. ¶ 1).

2.The Assault

On April 19, 1999, Eversley entered Morris's cell while she was sleeping.(Morris Dep.at 45, 130-31).When Morris was awakened by Eversley's touch, she asked him what he was doing there and told him to get out.(Id. at 45-46).Although Morris continued to tell Eversley "stop, get up" and "no,"he refused.(Id. at 47).Eversley restrained her, forced himself upon her, and ejaculated on her thigh and the bed.(Id. at 46-48).

The morning after the assault, Morris cut out and saved the portion of the bed sheet on which Eversley had ejaculated.(Id. at 158, 182).Fearing she would be transferred if she reported the incident, Morris did not initially file a grievance or report the incident to prison officials.(Id. at 50, 64-65)."I just wanted to let it die, just let it end."(Id. at 50).On June 9, 1999, almost two months after the incident, Morris received a disciplinary ticket from Eversley accusing her of threats and smuggling.(Id. at 61-62).That same day, Morris approached Kenneth Werbacher, the Captain and then Deputy Superintendent of Security at Bayview from September 1996 to July 2002(Werbacher Dep.at 11-12), to discuss the disciplinary ticket.(Morris Dep.at 62-63).Werbacher had received an anonymous tip about the incident and initiated a conversation with Morris about the assault.(Id. at 62-64;Werbacher Dep.at 88-89).

During her conversation with Werbacher, Morris turned over the portion of the bed sheet she had saved from the night of the incident.(Morris Dep.at 69).Werbacher put the sheet in an evidence bag and gave it to Darryl Warner, an investigator from the internal affair's unit of the Inspector General's office (the "IG's office") who happened to be in the building at the time.(Werbacher Dep.at 93-94;Warner Dep.at 8-9).Warner later forwarded the evidence to Faith Watson, an investigator in the sex crimes unit of the IG's office.(Watson Dep.at 6, 28-29;Warner Dep.at 13).Morris was transferred to Taconic shortly thereafter, for her own safety and protection.(Morris Dep.at 70;Watson Dep.at 17-19).Eversley, however, remained at Bayview pending investigation of the allegation against him.(SeeWatson Dep.at 19-20;Werbacher Dep.at 11, 135).

The portion of the sheet that Morris had saved was sent to be tested; on December 9, 1999, laboratory tests confirmed the presence of semen.(Watson Dep.at 30-32;ScottDecl. Ex. 12).The IG's office then contacted the New York County District Attorney's Office (the "DA's office") to present the case and potentially pursue criminal charges.(Watson Dep.at 36, 40-41).On July 16, 2002, the DNA profile of the semen on Morris's bed sheet was found to match Eversley's DNA profile.(ScottDecl. Ex. 13).Eversley was put on administrative leave on July 24, 2002, suspended on July 29, 2002, and dismissed from service on July 31, 2002.(DixonAff. ¶ 10; Velez Aff. Exs. C-E).

3.Standard Procedures

When allegations of a sexual nature arise, standard DOCS policy and procedure consist of immediately forwarding the complaint to the sex crimes unit of the IG's office for investigation.(Werbacher Dep.at 29-31;Dixon Dep.at 37-40;Porter Dep.at 38-39).No internal investigation is performed.(Dixon Dep.at 37-38).During the course of an investigation by the IG's office, the investigator conveys information to the superintendent or the head of security, Dixon and Werbacher in this case, not to any other staff members.(Watson Dep.at 41-42).

The authority for transferring a correctional officer from one facility to another rests with the Bureau of Labor Relations in Albany.(Watson Dep.at 19-20;Dixon ReplyAff. ¶ 6).Before an allegation is substantiated, it is often easier to transfer an inmate than an officer.(Porter Dep.at 119-20;Dixon Dep.at 83-84).In fact, the collective bargaining agreement between DOCS and the correctional officers' union does not allow any officer to be transferred, reassigned, suspended, or terminated because of an unsubstantiated allegation.(Dixon ReplyAff. ¶ 2).Any decisions regarding the suspension of a correctional officer also involve the Bureau of Labor Relations.(Watson Dep.at 109;Porter Dep.at 115-16).

4.Dixon's Involvement

As Superintendent of Bayview, Dixon would have been informed of any allegations or complaints that were forwarded to the IG's office.(Dixon Dep.at 37-40).While Dixon was at Bayview, if inmate allegations of a sexual nature were brought to her attention, she would immediately forward all appropriate complaints to the IG's office for investigation.(DixonAff. ¶ 3).

During her tenure at Bayview, Dixon was not personally aware of past sexual allegations against Eversley, although Dixon does have a "vague memory" of referring one allegation against Eversley to the IG's office in 1996.(Dixon Dep.at 44-45;DixonAff. ¶ 5).Any allegations of sexual harassment, for example, would not be reflected in an officer's personnel file unless some disciplinary action was taken.(Dixon Dep.at 60-61).Although Bayview had approximately ten allegations of sexual misconduct investigated by the IG's office each year, only two or three per year were substantiated, and the officers involved either resigned or were fired.(Dixon ReplyAff. ¶ 3).¹Significantly, no allegations of sexual abuse against Eversley were substantiated.(Id.).Additionally, Dixon was aware of only one instance in which an inmate who was not in the work release program² became pregnant.(DixonAff. ¶ 8).

On April 19, 1999, the date Eversley allegedly assaulted Morris, Dixon was no longer the Superintendent of Bayview.(DixonAff. ¶¶ 1, 2;Morris Dep.at 45, 130-31).Dixon was unaware of the incident between Morris and Eversley until April 2000, approximately sixteen months after leaving Bayview.(DixonAff. ¶ 4).When she was informed about the incident itself, Dixon also learned that Werbacher had referred the allegation to the IG's office immediately upon becoming aware of the situation.(Id.).

5.Porter's Involvement

On June 9, 1999, Morris wrote a letter about the assault.(Morris Dep.at 65).Initially, it was not addressed to anyone, but after a conversation with Anna Ramos, another inmate, Morris addressed the letter to Porter and then handed it to Werbacher during her conversation...