Pitts v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
| Decision Date | 13 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-cv-02691-RM-KLM |
| Parties | EDGAR NELSON PITTS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, in his official capacity as Warden, FREDERICK FRANDLE, in his official capacity as Hearing Administrator, and DIA BOUTWELL, in her official capacity as Psychologist, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#72][1] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff who proceeds as a pro se litigant, [2] filed a Response [#77] in opposition to the Motion [#72], Defendants filed a Reply [#79], and Plaintiff filed a Surreply [#83].[3] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1(c), the Motion [#72] has been referred to the undersigned for a recommendation regarding disposition. See [#75]. The Court has reviewed the briefs, the case file, and the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion [#72] be GRANTED.
Plaintiff initiated this action in the Eastern District of California on July 29, 2019. See Compl. [#1]. More than a year later, on September 4, 2020, his case was transferred to the District of Colorado, see [#25], where the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies in his Complaint [#1] within thirty days or the action would be dismissed. See Order Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies [#27]. On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint [#28]. Defendants filed their first Motion to Dismiss [#38] on December 14, 2020. The undersigned subsequently recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice. Recommendation [#67] at 21. The District Judge adopted the Recommendation [#67] and granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend His Complaint [#69]. Order [#70]. On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint [#71], which is now the operative complaint.
Plaintiff was originally a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary-Atwater (“Atwater”) in Atwater, California, where Defendant Andre Matevousian (“Matevousian”) served as Warden. Second Am. Compl. [#71] at 2. In July 2011, during his time at Atwater, Plaintiff engaged in a “fight that resulted in the death of Plaintiff's cellmate.” Id. at 12. Thereafter, Plaintiff was placed in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) at Atwater from 2011 until he was transferred to the United States Penitentiary-Administrative Maximum (“ADX”) facility in Florence, Colorado, in July 2016. Id. at 3, 11.
Defendants Matevousian, Frederick Frandle (“Frandle”), and Dr. Dia Boutwell (“Boutwell”) work for Defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) in various capacities. Id. at 2. Defendant Matevousian served as Warden at Atwater while Plaintiff was held there and allegedly initiated Plaintiff's transfer from the Atwater SHU to the ADX. Id. at 2, 8. Defendant Frandle administrated Plaintiff's ADX referral hearing prior to his transfer. Id. at 2, 9. Defendant Boutwell is a psychologist for Defendant BOP, and reviewed Plaintiff's mental health records to determine his eligibility for placement in the ADX. Id. at 2, 8-9. All individual defendants are sued in their official capacities. Id. at 2.
Similar to Plaintiff's description of events in the Amended Complaint [#28], many details in the Second Amended Complaint [#71] are unclear. Plaintiff's original transfer from Atwater to the ADX was apparently scheduled for sometime in late 2015. However, a July 2015 psychological evaluation (“July 2015 Evaluation”) of Plaintiff allegedly caused his transfer to the ADX to be denied in an October 6, 2015, memorandum (“October 2015 Memo”) by a Dr. William Bickart. See July 2015 Evaluation [#49] at 12;[5] October 2015 Memo [#71] at 21.[6] Plaintiff alleges that “on or about” the day his ADX transfer was denied, Defendant Matevousian presented Plaintiff with an ultimatum: “enroll in the Secure Mental Health Stepdown Program or be held in the SHU indefinitely.” Second Am. Compl. [#71] at 3-4. Plaintiff allegedly interviewed for the Secure Mental Health Stepdown Program (the “Stepdown Program”) on November 20, 2015, but “refused to enroll in the program.” Id. at 5. Sometime in December 2015, Plaintiff additionally refused to enter another “new program” intended for “unverified PC [protective custody inmates].” Id. at 6. In response to this refusal, Defendant Matevousian allegedly “abruptly stopped” an unspecified transfer that apparently would have sent Plaintiff to some penitentiary other than Atwater or the ADX. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matevousian violated an unidentified policy by attempting to keep him in the SHU indefinitely. Id. at 7. Because of the alleged policy violation, Plaintiff states that he was “reluctant to pursue administrative remed[ies]” for fear of “Defendant Matevousian's vindictive actions against prisoners who challenge him.” Id. at 6. However, Plaintiff alleges that “at the urging” of prison officials, he “filed a ‘Sensitive Nine' ....”[7] Id. at 7. Plaintiff asserts that he had a “First Amendment right to file the ‘Sensitive Nine' . . . to challenge Defendant Matevousian's threat to hold Plaintiff in the SHU indefinitely.” Id. at 7.
Plaintiff filed the “Sensitive Nine” against Defendant Matevousian in January 2016 while still at Atwater. Id. After Plaintiff filed the “Sensitive Nine, ” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matevousian “abused his authority and discretion” by undermining the “[July 2015 Evaluation] that precluded Plaintiff from placement in the ADX, ” therefore allowing Plaintiff to be referred for transfer to the ADX a second time. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this “amounts to retaliation” by Defendant Matevousian. Id.
At an unspecified time in January 2016, Plaintiff began hearing “rumors” that “Defendant Matevousian was pulling strings to get Plaintiff referred to the ADX again.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff received a Rejection Notice relating to his “Sensitive Nine” on January 28, 2016. Id. When Plaintiff asked Defendant Matevousian at an unspecified time about the “rumor, ” Defendant Matevousian allegedly “confirmed in a spiteful manner by saying ‘I told them you're not crazy.'” Second Am. Compl. [#71] at 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Matevousian then presented a “changed” ultimatum: the Stepdown Program or the ADX. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, on February 3, 2016, Atwater psychologists Dr. Bain and Dr. Kodger “convinced Plaintiff . . . [to] enroll” in the Stepdown Program. Id.
On March 1, 2016, a Mental Health Reassessment (“Reassessment”) of Plaintiff's ADX referral by Defendant Boutwell “re-reviewed” Plaintiff's psychological records and concluded “there is no evidence of mental illness which would preclude [Plaintiff's] placement at ADX Florence.” Reassessment [#71] at 23, 25.[8] Plaintiff alleges Defendant Boutwell prepared the Reassessment to “accommodate an improper agenda”- presumably, Defendant Matevousian's efforts to “undermine” the July 2015 Evaluation. Second Am. Compl. [#71] at 8-9. Plaintiff further alleges that this unspecified “retaliation” by Defendant Matevousian led to the scheduling of the second ADX referral hearing. Id. at 13.
Sometime after Defendant Boutwell completed her Reassessment, Plaintiff alleges that previous restrictions were reimposed which prevented Plaintiff from having a cellmate, participating in group recreation, and working as an SHU orderly. Id. at 9. However, the Second Amended Complaint [#71] does not clarify when these restrictions were originally imposed, removed, or reimposed. Plaintiff further alleges that he had not incurred any new infractions and that his “only conduct” during this time was filing the “Sensitive Nine, ” which, Plaintiff asserts, must be the reason that Defendant Matevousian retaliated against him. Id. at 13. When Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Matevousian on an unspecified date in March 2016 about Plaintiff's pending ADX referral hearing, Defendant Matevousian allegedly replied “in a spiteful manner [that he] ‘made some calls, talked to some people and got them to get rid of that psychological report.'” Id. at 16.
Defendant Frandle was the administrator for Plaintiff's ADX referral hearing held on April 16, 2016. Id. at 9. During the hearing, three prison staff members made oral or written statements on Plaintiff's behalf, describing a lack of incidents since Plaintiff's fight with his cellmate in July 2011. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiff also made a statement that he had “been doing everything possible to better” himself. Id. at 12. In the subsequently issued “Control Unit Hearing Administrator's Report” (the “Report”), Defendant Frandle stated that “the psychologist provided a memorandum indicating the inmate had no serious mental health issues which preclude his placement in the ADX control unit.” See [#38-1] at 16.[9] However, despite this explicit statement in the Report, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Frandle “clearly omitted the fact that Plaintiff was denied placement at the ADX on psychological grounds on October 6, 2015.” Second Am. Compl. [#72] at 11. Ultimately, Plaintiff's transfer to the ADX was approved, of which he was notified on May 9, 2016. Id. Plaintiff then filed an appeal in accordance with the notice of his transfer, but on July 7, 2016, Plaintiff “was recieved [sic] at the ADX in Florence, Colorado.” Id.
Plaintiff brings three claims. First, he renews his claim that Defendants violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing a grievance against Defendant Matevousian. Second Am. Compl. [#71] at 3. Second, Plaintiff asserts a new claim that Defendants' “wrong and unnecessary” transfer of Plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial