Parks v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 29 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 6:10-355-GFVT |
| Parties | DARRELL J. PARKS, Plaintiff, v. HOLLY ANDERSON, Case Manager, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
Plaintiff Darrell J. Parks is an inmate formerly confined at the United States Penitentiary - McCreary ("USP-McCreary") in Pine Knot, Kentucky.1 Parks, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that during the time he was an inmate at USP-McCreary, the named defendants,2 jointly and severally, violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Parks seeks a declaratory judgment to thateffect, as well as compensatory damages against the defendants, in their individual capacities, totaling $7 million, punitive damages totaling $14 million, trial by jury, the appointment of counsel, and his costs and associated fees.
The defendants have moved to dismiss this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b))(6), for several different reasons, or alternatively, for summary judgment. [R. 53] Parks having filed a response to the defendants' dispositive motion3 [R. 70], this matter is ripe for review.
Parks' complaint centers on his encounters and interactions with various USP-McCreary personnel during 2009. Parks complains about separate incidents that allegedly occurred in May, June, August, and October of 2009. More particularly, Parks complains about events that occurred on May 22, May 23, June 4, June 5, June 6, June 9, June 14, June 24, July 16, August 9, August 18, August 19, August 20, August 24, October 15, and October 22, 2009. Generally, Parks alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants' "retaliation and/or conspiracy to retaliate and/or campaign of harassment" against him. [Complaint - R. 2, p. 2].
A brief chronology of the events about which Parks complains follows:
a. May 22, 2009
Parks states that on May 22, 2009, he approached Case Manager Anderson and asked her to contact the United States Parole Commission to inquire about his parole and that she informed him that she did not have time to do that. [Complaint, R. 2, pp. 5-6]. In response,Parks states that he threatened to file a grievance against Case Manager Anderson and that in response to his threat, she retaliated against him by ordering that the Sanitation Closet be locked to keep him from using it as he had been for a law library/study room. [Id., Page #6, ¶¶ 19-20]
Parks also alleges that Case Manager Anderson discussed confidential information regarding him in an Incident Report with another inmate and that she indicated that she was going to transfer him to a distant institution if a transfer were recommended by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (hereinafter "DHO"). [Id., Page ID #7, ¶ 23].
b. May 23, 2009
Parks states that on May 23, 2009, as he was en route to breakfast, he approached Officer Jones and inquired whether Officer Jones had called him for the two-hour check and that Officer Jones responded that Parks was 24 minutes late and that he would be written up. [Id., Page ID #7, ¶ 24]. Parks became upset by Officer Jones's response to his question, leading to a confrontation between them. Ultimately, Parks states that he was escorted to the Lieutenant's Office where he was moved to a different unit due to his problems with Case Manager Anderson and Officer Jones.4 [Id., Page ID #9, ¶ 45].
c. June 4, 2009
Parks claims that on June 4, 2009, he asked Counselor Straub to file/process some grievances on his behalf and requested that Counselor Straub fill out the indigence section of a motion he was going to file. Parks states that Counselor Straub allegedly responded by stating "I'm not doing nothing today." [Id., Page ID #10, ¶¶ 50-53]. Parks indicates that he thentaunted Counselor Straub by telling him that he now needed another grievance form to file a grievance against him and that Counselor Straub allegedly reacted by yelling at him, [Id., Page ID #10, ¶ 54].
d. June 5, 2009
On this date, Parks states that he was standing in the Unit Team's hallway area during open house to see Counselor Straub when Case Manager Anderson demanded that he leave the Unit Team area. [Id., Page ID #10, ¶¶ 55-56]. Parks assumes that Case Manager Anderson made this demand "in an attempt to prevent [him] from filing his grievances." [Id., Page ID #1011, ¶¶ 56-57]. Parks states that he did not comply with Case Manager Anderson's request and remained outside the Unit Team's door, waiting to see Counselor Straub who was "disrespectful, unprofessional, vindictive" and "sought to discourage the [Plaintiff]" from filing his grievances. Id. Essentially, Parks admits that he got into a shouting match with Counselor Straub and that he did not move away from the Unit Team's door, even after being ordered to do so, causing Counselor Straub to call for the Lieutenant's Office for assistance and having him moved to the SHU. Parks alleges that he was placed in the SHU under the "false pretense of Insolence Towards Staff and Inciting a Riot." [[Id., Page ID #11, ¶ 61].
Parks states that he was escorted to the Lieutenant's Office and then to the SHU pending an Incident Report and that shortly thereafter, "false" charges were filed against him for violations of Code 299, "Conduct disruptive to security or orderly running of a BOP facility, most like" and Code 212, "Engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration." [Id., Page ID #12, ¶¶ 69-71]. Parks claims that the charges were "concocted" due to his statements and his desire to file grievances and complaints against BOP staff. Id.e. June 6, 2009
Parks claims that the Lieutenant investigating the June 5, 2009, Incident Report assisted Counselor Straub in "his retaliation/conspiracy to retaliate/campaign for harassment" by denying him due process and failing to interview his witnesses and to review the video of the incident. [Id., Page ID #12-13, ¶¶ 72-76].
f. June 9, 2009
Parks states that on June 9, 2009, Case Manager Anderson was a member of the Unit Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter "UDC") hearing. Parks believes that since Case Manager Anderson was on his UDC, she was "carrying out [Counselor Straub's] retaliatory act by processing the incident report as true to the DHO; notwithstanding, that she was a part of the incident and having an active role and being on the scene." [Id., Page ID #13, ¶¶ 77-78].
g. June 14, 2009
Parks claims that on June 14, 2009, he stopped an "unknown Lieutenant" in Unit 6-B and asked him if he would be his staff representative. [Id., Page ID #13, ¶ 79]. According to Parks, the Lieutenant agreed to be his staff representative and that approximately one week later, the Lieutenant supposedly told the Plaintiff that he should call him and the Special Investigations Service (hereinafter "SIS") Lieutenant because they had viewed the video tape and that it did not show that Parks was hostile, nor "getting a lot of prisoners for your cause." [Id., Page ID #13, ¶¶ 79-80] Parks also claims that the unknown Lieutenant was aware that he was not getting along with his Unit Team "because of filing complaints/grievances against them... ." [Id., Page ID #13-14, ¶ 80].
h. June 24, 2009 Parks states that he was transferred to the SHU after two and a half weeks in Unit 6-B and that for approximately the same time period he asked DHO Raitt for a DHO hearing but that the DHO did not have the necessary paperwork. [Id., Page ID #14, ¶¶ 81-82] Parks assumes that it was Case Manager Anderson who purposely withheld and failed to process the Incident Report in order to "deny [the Plaintiff] of due process" so as to harass, retaliate, and conspire to retaliate against him. [Id., Page ID #14, ¶ 85]
Parks also claims that in the meantime Unit Manager Moulton used intimidation and harassment against him by telling him that he was being recommended for the Special Management Unit (hereinafter "SMU"). [Id., Page ID #14, ¶ 83] Parks states that he asked, "Am I being recommended to the SMU because I want to file?" Id., 84, and that the response was simply that he was being recommended to the SMU. Id.
i. July 16, 2009
Parks states that on or about July 16, 2009, the Incident Report was expunged by DHO Raitt, and he was released from the SHU on June 25, 2009. [Id., Page ID #14, ¶¶ 86-87]. Parks claims that upon his release from the SHU, his legal and personal mail was purposely misdirected in an attempt to "thwart maybe even botch his legal filings." [Id., Page ID #14, ¶ 87].
j. AUGUST 9, 2009
Plaintiff states that on or about August 9, 2009 he was involved in a UDC hearing with Counselor Wood and Case Manager Anderson in which he was afforded no privacy, was denied an opportunity to make a statement, and that staff did not log all his witnesses. [Id., Page ID #18, ¶ 119]. Parks assumes that Counselor Wood and Case Manager Anderson sat as boardmembers at the UDC hearing in order to retaliate and to conspire to retaliate, in their campaign of harassment in an attempt to deny him due process during his UDC hearing. [Id., Page ID #18, ¶¶ 120-121].
k. August 18, 2009
Parks claims that on August 18, 2009, he approached Officer Bryant and requested to be placed on suicide watch. [Id., Page ID #14, ¶ 88]. In response, Parks states that Officer Bryant conveyed his request to be placed on suicide watch to the Operations Lieutenant and allegedly threatened Parks that if he continued to file complaints on her friends and co-workers, especially Case Manager Anderson, he was going to end up in the SMU. [Id., Page ID #14-15, ¶¶ 88-89]. Parks alleges that Officer Bryant got into an argument with him while he waited to be escorted to the Lieutenant's Office. [Id., Page ID #14, ¶¶ 88-92].
Parks' encounter with Officer Bryant resulted in Officer Bryant charging Parks in another...
To continue reading
Request your trial