Shanklin v. Chamblin
| Decision Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | A-11-CA-699-LY |
| Parties | STEVEN DALE SHANKLIN, DORIS GAY LUBER, and on behalf of D.M.S., and on behalf of S.D.S v. ELLEN CHAMBLIN, ANNA ARMIJO, S. MA'AT, SHAWN MIKESKA, ROBERT KOSCO, and CLAUDE MAYE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
The Magistrate Court submits this Interim Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(f) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrates Judges, as amended, effective December 1, 2002.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' complaint (Document No. 1); Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 7); and Plaintiff Steven Dale Shanklin's response thereto (Document No. 8). Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have paid the full filing fee for their complaint.
Plaintiff Steven Dale Shanklin ("Shanklin") entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement on May 20, 2005, in Cause No. A-05-CR-064-SS. Shanklin was sentenced on September 30, 2005, to sixty months custody in the Bureau of Prisons, followed by a three-year term of supervised release, for attempting to evade or defeat tax in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.According to Shanklin, he was initially incarcerated on November 18, 2005, at the FCI Bastrop Satellite Prison Camp. Shanklin asserts he was unlawfully transferred to FCI La Tuna on November 20, 2007,1 in retaliation for helping inmates at Bastrop with their legal work and administrative remedies. The transfer allegedly caused an increase in Shanklin's security level.
Shanklin complains he was forced to work hard labor as part of his sentence from November 18, 2005, through September 29, 2009, while he was confined at FCI Bastrop and FCI La Tuna. Additionally, Shanklin complains he was only provided 30 square feet of housing per inmate at FCI Bastrop and only 24 square feet of housing per inmate at FCI La Tuna. Shanklin claims he was kept in overcrowded and inhumane prison conditions during his totality of confinement at FCI Bastrop and FCI La Tuna. In addition, Shanklin alleges the transfer caused him a loss of consortium for five months.
Shanklin also complains of an incident occurring on August 12, 2009. Shanklin alleges his living area was searched on this day and some of his property was taken. According to Shanklin, the property included some of his legal materials, such as legal paperwork filed in another inmate's case, large paper clips and green folders. He claims this interfered with his ability to effectively argue his intended appeal. Shanklin states he had been using the clips and green folders for years without complaint from prison officials. Shanklin alleges it was not until August 12, 2009, after he helped inmates with their administrative remedies against Defendants Ma'at and Chamblin did they object to his use of the clips and folders.
Shanklin indicates he was issued Incident Report #1904419 on August 12, 2009, at 6:05 p.m. The following day, Shanklin attended his disciplinary hearing at 2:27 p.m., less than twenty-four hours after he was issued the report. According to Shanklin, the Unit Disciplinary Committee ("UDC") consisted of Associate Warden R. Kosco and Camp Case Manager Ms. A. Armijo. Shanklin asserts he objected he did not have twenty-four hours notice prior to the hearing. Shanklin states he admitted to having possession of the legal materials of another inmate, the clips and the folders. However, he allegedly explained why such property was legally in his possession. Shanklin maintains he asked to call Ms. Tatum as a witness at his hearing, but his request was denied. Shanklin also asserts he told the UDC he was being harassed and retaliated against for helping three inmates prepare their administrative remedies. Shanklin alleges Kosco found him guilty of a Code 305 violation and imposed the loss of thirty days of telephone privileges as punishment. As a result of the punishment, Shanklin claims he and his family suffered a loss of consortium.
Shanklin alleges he appealed the disciplinary decision to Warden Maye. Warden Maye allegedly responded on September 10, 2009, that the incident report was processed appropriately.
During the week beginning September 21, 2009, Shanklin claims Defendant Chamblin worked the graveyard shift from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Shanklin claims at least three times that week Chamblin awoke Shanklin by striking her service flashlight against Shanklin's bed frame while she was doing the midnight bed count. Shanklin maintains Chamblin disturbed Shanklin's sleep in retaliation for his exercising his constitutional and statutory rights and subjected Shanklin to duress, coercion, and undue influence over Shanklin's personal decision-making automony.
Shanklin, his mother Doris Gay Luber and Shanklin's children request monetary damages against Defendants Ellen Chamblin, Anna Armijo, S. Ma'at, Shawn Mikeska, Robert Kosco andClaude Maye. Specifically, Shanklin claims he was denied his rights to free speech and to petition the government when Defendants Chamblin, Armijo, Ma'at, Kosco and Maye retaliated against him for helping other inmates prepare legal documents and administrative remedies. Shanklin further claims Defendant Chamblin deprived Shanklin of his right to privacy in his legal matters. With regard to Shanklin's disciplinary hearing Shanklin claims Defendants Armijo, Kosco and Maye deprived him of his rights to: (1) fair notice of a criminal offense, (2) twenty-four hours notice before his disciplinary hearing, (3) call witnesses, (4) present evidence, and (5) trial by impartial jury. Similarly, he claims Defendants Armijo, Kosco and Maye imposed cruel and unusual punishment and violated his right to only be disciplined for violating Bureau of Prison rules. Shanklin further claims Defendants Armijo, Ma'at, Mikeska, Kosco and Maye imposed cruel and unusual punishment by providing Shanklin with inadequate housing. Shanklin additionally claims Defendants Chamblin, Armijo, Ma'at, Mikeska, Kosco and Maye intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. Next, Shanklin claims Defendants Chamblin, Armijo, Ma'at, Mikeska, Kosco and Maye violated 28 U.S.C. § 1589 by forcing Shanklin to involuntary servitude at hard labor. Shanklin also claims Defendant Chamblin committed theft and conversion of his legal materials. Shanklin next claims Defendants Chamblin, Armijo, Ma'at, Mikeska, Kosco and Maye were negligent with regard to his disciplinary proceeding, his transfer to La Tuna, and the causing of loss of consortium between Shanklin and his mother and children. Finally, Shanklin claims he was transferred to a penitentiary for the service of his sentence in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to not be incarcerated at a penitentiary without the return of an indictment by a grand jury. Although Shanklin alleges his constitutional claims are filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his claims are actually brought under Bivens v. Six UnknownNamed Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), because Shanklin is suing federal actors.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint or for summary judgment. Defendants argue Shanklin's complaint should be dismissed for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit. Defendants further argue Shanklin's retaliation claim is without merit because inmates do not have a constitutionally protected interest in assignment to a particular facility or custodial classification. In addition, they argue Shanklin's retaliation claim with regard to his transfer to FCI La Tuna is time-barred. With respect to Shanklin's complaint about the size of the prison dorm rooms, Defendants argue Plaintiffs lack standing because none of them are currently confined in federal prison. They additionally argue Shanklin's allegations regarding the size of the prison dorm rooms fail to state a constitutional violation. To the extent Shanklin challenges his prison disciplinary proceeding Defendants argue Shanklin does not raise a constitutional claim, because Shanklin only lost 30-days of phone privileges. Defendants also assert their entitlement to qualified immunity and argue they are immune from Plaintiffs' assertion of common law torts against them.
Shanklin responds he is not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he was not a prisoner at the time he filed his lawsuit. Shanklin admits his claim against Defendant Mikeska regarding his negligent transfer to FCI La Tuna is time-barred. Shanklin clarifies he did not allege he had a constitutionally protected interest in assignment to a particular facility but instead alleged his transfer was for a constitutionally impermissible reason. Shanklin denies his claim regarding forced labor is time-barred and argues that cause of action has a ten-year limitations period. Shanklin refutes Defendants argument that he has no standing to challenge prison overcrowdingsimply because he is no longer incarcerated. Shanklin denies Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Shanklin also denies Defendants are entitled to immunity in their individual capacities for torts, because Defendants were not acting in the course and scope of their federal employment. Specifically, Shanklin argues none of the defendants' retaliatory behavior falls within the scope of their employment nor does their disciplinary procedures carried out in violation of the rules of the Bureau of Prisons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial