Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 30 March 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 12–1872 (RC)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

246 F.Supp.3d 211

Jeremy PINSON, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 12–1872 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 30, 2017

Theodore C. Whitehouse, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Damon William Taaffe, Eric Joseph Young, Carl Ezekiel Ross, Jesse Dyer Stewart, Theresa Ekeoma Dike, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING AS PREMATURE PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DISCOVERY; APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson claims that her¹ constitutional rights were violated when Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights. The DOJ—on behalf of the defendant-officials—moves to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Because the Court concludes that Pinson has adequately stated a claim, it denies the motion to dismiss. The Court also denies the DOJ's motion for summary judgment as to Pinson's claims that prison officials refuse to investigate her administrative complaints and transferred her to a more restrictive setting, but grants the DOJ's motion for summary judgment as to Pinson's other claims of miscellaneous retaliation.

II. BACKGROUND²

This is not the first time this Court has addressed Pinson's claims for First Amendment retaliation. In her Corrected Second Amended Complaint of October 2013, Pinson raised a variety of constitutional claims against, inter alia , defendants Charles Samuels and John Dignam. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 32. Each was sued in both his official and individual capacity. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 2. Samuels was the Director of the BOP, and Dignam was Chief of the BOP's Office of Internal Affairs. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 2. As relief, Pinson seeks an injunction against Samuels and Dignam barring them "from further acts of retaliation," as well as "[c]ompensatory and punitive damages." Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 16. This Court dismissed several of Pinson's constitutional claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and required Pinson to submit a more definite statement of the facts underlying each surviving claim, see generally Mem. Op. at 52–63, Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , No. 12-1872, 2016 WL 29245, at *23–27 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2016), ECF No. 259, which Pinson has now filed, see generally Pl.'s More Def. Statement Bivens Claims (Pl.'s Statement), ECF No. 279.

The Court now considers Pinson's current claims—first, a claim alleging that Dignam and Samuels refused to investigate Pinson's administrative complaints in retaliation for her First Amendment activities; second, a claim that Samuels transferred Pinson to ADX Florence³ in retaliation for her First Amendment activities; and third, Pinson's claims of other miscellaneous retaliation for her First Amendment activities directed by Samuels.

All of these claims involve alleged retaliation against Pinson for her First Amendment activities. These activities include contributing to news articles, posting to a blog, tweeting, filing lawsuits on her own behalf, and assisting other inmates in filing lawsuits. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 14. Despite the retaliation she describes, Pinson asserts that she "explicitly vowed to never cease writing lawsuits, blog posts (www.betweenthebars.org) and letters to the media," and identifies an example of her continued engagement with the media. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 8; see also Pl.'s Statement, Ex. 1, Alan Prendergast, Fires, Hangings, Madness: Is Florence SHU the Worst Cellblock in America? , Westword (Mar. 15, 2016), http://www.westword.com/news/fires-hangings-madness-is-florence-shu-the-worst-cellblock-in-america-7700845 (news article discussing Florence ADX with contribution from Pinson).

A. Claim One—Refusal to Investigate

According to Pinson, she has filed "dozens" of complaints alleging misconduct by BOP employees that were eventually routed to Dignam. Pl.'s Statement ¶¶ 1–3, ECF No. 279. Plaintiff asserts that she has confirmed that the complaints were referred to Dignam through FOIA requests. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 4. Pinson claims that Dignam "refused to investigate the complaints unless Plaintiff agreed to cease news media contacts and litigation against BOP." Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 14.

As evidence of this claim, Pinson states that she met with a special agent and unit manager in 2011 who told her that Dignam would not investigate her complaints because she was "a gadfly constantly inundating Dignam's office with complaints" and adverse attention from the media. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 5. According to Pinson, the special agent and unit manager told her that Dignam would investigate her complaints if she ceased these activities. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 5. Pinson claims that the special agent and unit manager told her that they met with her on Samuels's instruction. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 7. Pinson also claims that she met in-person with Samuels in August of 2015, and that he "admitted in his own words" to her that he had caused the 2011 meeting. Pl.'s Statement ¶ 7.

Pinson further claims that in the "summer of 2015" she met with two agents from BOP's Office of Internal Affairs who told her that she was "hated all the way to the top"—which they clarified referred to Dignam and Samuels—and therefore "no one is gonna help you and end up in the New York Times over something you filed." Pl.'s Statement ¶ 6. Pinson claims that "Samuels and Dignam also gave authorization to place plaintiff on mail restrictions limiting plaintiffs [sic] communications with attorneys and the news media." Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 16.

B. Claim Two—Transfer to ADX Florence

Pinson also alleges that she was transferred to ADX Florence in retaliation for her activities. Pinson claims that when Samuels was Assistant Director of the BOP, he emailed an employee and had that employee interrogate Pinson and order her to cease contacts with the news media. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 15. When she refused, Pinson alleges that Samuels "ordered plaintiff moved to ADX Florence using information he knew to be false." Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 15.

As evidence, Pinson asserts that she was told by staff at ADX Florence that Samuels had told them to stop her from engaging in lawsuits or contacts with the news media. Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 15. Pinson also asserts that, during her ADX referral hearing in December of 2015, the hearing administrator told her that Samuels would "halt her transfer to ADX [Florence] if she agreed to cease all lawsuits and press contacts, or the reverse if she didnt [sic]." Pl.'s Statement ¶ 8. When Pinson was transferred to ADX Florence, she asserts that it was "personally authorized" by Samuels, Pl.'s Statement ¶ 9, as evidenced by his signature on the paperwork, ADX General Population Placement Decision, ECF No. 279, Ex. 2; ECF No. 288–1, Ex. A (same document).

C. Claim Three—Other Allegedly Retaliatory Acts

Pinson also alleges several other miscellaneous acts of retaliation.⁴ She claims that Samuels ordered various employees to "convince" her to stop filing lawsuits and contacting the news media in March of 2013, and that the employees' persuasive strategies included separating Pinson from another individual and "cell searches, strip searches, deprivation of meals, and making threats." Corr. 2d Am. Compl. at 15.

D. Materials Considered in Relation to the Motion for Summary Judgment

The DOJ submitted a declaration from Samuels which provides additional factual material. In 2011—prior to his role as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons⁵ —Samuels served as the Assistant Director for the Correctional Programs Division. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 288–1. In that capacity Samuels admits that he approved Pinson's transfer to ADX Florence, as he was responsible for approving or rejecting all recommended transfers to ADX Florence. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶¶ 10, 12. Samuels claims that his participation in the transfer came only after a hearing administrator had reviewed and approved the referral. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶ 12. Samuels denies telling the hearing administrator that he would stop the transfer if Pinson stopped litigation and press contacts. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶ 12. The DOJ also provided the report of the hearing administrator who recommended Pinson's transfer to ADX Florence. That report shows that, prior to the transfer, Pinson had accumulated a disciplinary record that included sixteen reported incidents, including seven for possession of a weapon, four for serious assault, four for setting fires, and one for taking a hostage. ECF No. 288–1, Ex. A.

Samuels also denies all of Pinson's other allegations. Samuels denies having any conversation with the special agent and unit manager about Pinson. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶ 5. Samuels denies that he interacted with Pinson at all in August of 2015, including denying threatening to keep Pinson in "restrictive housing." 2d Samuels Decl. ¶¶ 6, 13. Samuels also denies having any conversation with the named OIA agents regarding Pinson. 2d Samuels Decl. ¶ 8.

* * *

The DOJ has now moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to renew its motion for summary judgment.⁶ See generally Def.'s Mot. Dismiss or Renewed Mot. Summ. J. (MTD), ECF No. 287.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The DOJ raises both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. The Court considers the applicable legal standard for each in turn. In general, it notes that a pro se complaint is held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) ), although it still must comply with the ...