Moultrie v. Byars
| Decision Date | 15 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | C/A No. 9:14-1690-DCN-BM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Stanley Lee Moultrie, Plaintiff, v. Director William Byars, Jr., South Carolina Department of Corrections Director; Bryan P. Stirling; Governor Nikki Haley; Attorney General Alan Wilson; Deputy Director Robert Ward; S.C.D.C. General Counsel Dayne Haile; Christopher Florian; Ann Hallman, Agency Grievance Coordinator; Maria Leggins, Agency Mailroom Coordinator; Willie Eagleton, Evan Warden; Associate Warden McFadden; Major C. West; Bethea Lt. Michael Toms; Ms. Baker, Mailroom Coordinator; Ms. Graves, ECI Grievance Coordinator; Pamela McDowell, Mailroom Supervisor; Lt. James Martin; Sgt. H. Sims; Associate Warden Bush, Lee CI; Associate Warden Nolan; Associate Warden Dean; K. Rivers, Lee CI Grievance Coordinator; Jimmy Sleigh; Deputy Warden; Lt. Jack Brown; Ms. Conyers, Lee CI Officer; General Counsel Tatarsky; Deputy Director McCall, Amy Smith, D. Eastridge, Felicia McQueen, Sandra Bowie, Deputy Warden Davis, Captain Mr. Thomas and Ms. Wilson, Defendants. |
This action was originally filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, asserting various claims against various Defendants. Plaintiff is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). This case was removed to this United States District Court by some of the Defendants on April 28, 2014.1
Although Plaintiff's original Complaint is drafted in a convoluted and rambling manner, by Order of the Court filed May 6, 2014, the Court determined (granting Plaintiff's pleading the liberal construction to which he is entitled as a pro se litigant) that Plaintiff has asserted claims for interference with his prison mail in violation of the First Amendment in Paragraphs 6, 11, 14, and 58; unconstitutional excessive use of force in Paragraphs 9, 18, 32 and 38; unconstitutional conditions of confinement in Paragraphs 10, 16, 26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 43-45, 50, 67, 69 and 70; unconstitutional interference with his right of access to the courts in Paragraphs 2, 6, 9, 11, 15, 39, 48, 56-57, and 60; and unconstitutionally inadequate medical care in Paragraphs 19, 20, 29, 33-34, 51 and 68.2 Plaintiff also originally asserted his excessive force claim as a state assault and battery tort, and alleged that the Defendants are guilty of negligence with respect to various of his claims, also a state tort. However, as part of a motion to amend filed by the Plaintiff (Court Docket No. 46), Plaintiff abandoned his state tort law causes of action.3 Therefore, the only claims Plaintiff is asserting in thislawsuit are his federal constitutional claims as are set forth hereinabove. See Order filed September 12, 2014 (Court Docket No. 55), p. 4, n. 5.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P, on April 2, 2015. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro order was entered by the Court on April 6, 2015, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. Plaintiff thereafter filed a response in opposition to the Defendants' motion on June 9, 2015, which included a fifty-four page brief together with one hundred and sixty pages of supporting documents.4 The Defendants' motion is now before the Court for disposition.5
At the time Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, he was incarcerated at the Lee Correctional Institution (LCI), part of the SCDC prison system. As established and set forth in the Court's Order of September 12, 2014, Plaintiff is asserting, in general, five violations of this constitutional rights.
In ¶ ¶ 6, 11, 14 and 58 of the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for interference with his prison mail in violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2011, the Defendant Pamela McDowell (Mail Supervisor at the Evans Correctional Institution(ECI), where Plaintiff was then housed) sent Plaintiff a notice of rejection of some legal correspondence he had addressed to the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, because he had not put his room cell number on the return address. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Sgt. Sims "slid the mail under the Plaintiff's cell door" and told Plaintiff the reason it had been returned. Plaintiff alleges that after he examined the mail, he discovered a "centimeter precision cut" on the back of the envelope that had been taped over with a clear adhesive transparent tape, but that when he showed Sims the envelope, Sims stated he had no idea how that had happened but that he would do an incident report. Plaintiff alleges that he "believes" that the Defendant Warden Eagleton ordered the Defendant McDowell to open Plaintiff's legal mail and read the contents.
Plaintiff further alleges that McDowell violated his constitutional rights (as well as SCDC Policy/Procedure) when she intercepted a ninety page jailhouse lawyer manual that had been sent to him by the National Lawyers Guild of New York. Plaintiff alleges that other inmates had received this manual while on "security management", but that the Defendants "open[ed] his legal mail" and told Plaintiff that he would not receive this material. Plaintiff alleges that he wrote a complaint to the Defendant William Byars (SCDC Director) about this incident.
Plaintiff also alleges that "prison officials" withheld "indigent envelopes" given to him to write his family for "two entire months [January and February 2012]". Finally, Plaintiff alleges that prison officials were not only "stealing mail", but they were "illegally charging prisoners' account[s] when no postage was needed for the inter-departmental mail". See Complaint, ¶ ¶ 6, 11, 14, 58.
In ¶ ¶ 9, 18, 32 and 38 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional excessive use of force. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on December 21, 2011,he was asleep in his cell when he awoke to see members of the "rapid response team", consisting of the Defendant Lt. Martin, someone named "Harper", and another unnamed officer. Plaintiff alleges that he was told to "strip naked and be placed in belly and handcuff[s]" and told to sit down beside his cell mate. Plaintiff alleges that he complied with these instructions. Plaintiff alleges that the officers then began "tossing his legal work and court document[s]" all over the cell (presumably as part of a cell search), and that when Plaintiff told them not to throw his legal documents away or ruin them, Martin cursed at him and told him to shut up. Plaintiff alleges that he and Martin then got into a "heated argument", following which Martin instructed the other officer to put Plaintiff in the "crisis intervention cell". Plaintiff alleges that even though he was compliant, Martin "assault[ed]" him and sprayed him in the genital area with pepper spray before cursing at him again. Plaintiff alleges that in addition to being excessive force, this conduct also violated SCDC policy. Plaintiff alleges that the chemical agent "sabre red" (the agent Martin allegedly used) is designed to burn and irritate the skin, but that he was "not allowe[ed] . . . to shower for days at a time because they claim the prisoner can use the sink to wash". Plaintiff alleges that he "has chemical burns around his neck, chest and stomach . . . .".
Plaintiff also alleges that an Officer Quick6 began referring to him as a "snitch" because he was filing grievances, and that on the evening of September 12, 20147 Quick opened the "food pass" flap on the cell door while Plaintiff and his cell mate were sitting down eating, and"sprayed [an] entire can of chemical sabre red pepper spray into [the] cell", then stating "that's for what you said about my daughter". Plaintiff alleges that Quick thereafter "fabricated the Incident Report to justify the use of force", and that neither he or his room mate "were given a shower until two days later". Plaintiff also alleges that Quick's actions violated the SCDC Use of Force Policy, and that he was "barred" from disclosing the statements of witnesses at a later disciplinary hearing (apparently relating to his incident).
Plaintiff further alleges that on March 28, 2012, Martin was opening the "food pass entrance" while handing out food in the SMU.8 Plaintiff alleges that when Martin reached his food service flap, Plaintiff inquired about a Request to Staff Form he had sent to the commissary concerning underwear, at which time Martin "angrily" slammed Plaintiff's right pinky finger in the flap. Plaintiff alleges that he screamed in pain and fell on the floor, while his room mate yelled to the officer that Plaintiff needed a nurse. Plaintiff alleges that "Sgt. Manning" came to his cell but told Plaintiff he was not doing anything to help him.9 See Complaint, ¶ ¶ 9, 18, 32, 38.
In ¶ ¶ 10, 16, 26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 43-45, 50, 67, 69 and 70 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to various unconstitutional conditions of confinement, some of which also touch on various actions by prison officials which may relate to other claims. Plaintiff alleges that he contracted a severe eye infection due to the fact that he was not given disinfectant to clean his cell, that the prisoners in the SMU are allowed to shower only three days out of seven, and that his cell at LCI was "filthy" and a "breeding ground for bacteria, and germs and microbes", and "had no mechanism to hang face towels and cloth". Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 2012 theDefendant Sgt. Sims made him take down a "cloth line" Plaintiff had made to hang his laundry after Plaintiff had washed his clothes in the toilet, and that Sims "denied the Plaintiff recreation", resulting in Plaintiff and Sims getting into a "verbal altercation" over recreation...
To continue reading
Request your trial