Sheldon v. Underwood
| Decision Date | 22 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:19-CV-2041-M-BH,3:19-CV-2041-M-BH |
| Parties | GARY SHELDON, ID # 13437-045, Plaintiff, v. MARTHA UNDERWOOD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Before the court is the plaintiff's amended complaint, received on March 10, 2020 (doc. 15). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff's amended complaint should be DISMISSED with prejudice, and his motion for Preliminary Injunction Temporary Restraining Order, received on April 16, 2020 (doc. 18), as supplemented on November 30, 2020 (doc. 26), should be DENIED.
On August 27, 2019, Gary Sheldon (Plaintiff), an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute at Seagoville, Texas (FCI-Seagoville), sued its warden, two prison psychologists, and the compound Lieutenant under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (See doc. 3 at 5-6.)2 He amended his complaint on March 10, 2020, to add 11 more defendants, including the new warden, another prison psychologist, two additional Lieutenants, three mail room officials, two correctional officers, the regional director, and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) General Council. (See doc. 15 at 1-2.) On April 16, 2020, Plaintiffprovided additional details about his claims against the defendants and voluntarily withdrew his claims against the regional director and the BOP General Council in his responses to a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire (MJQ). (See doc. 17; see id. at 41-42.) He alleges claims against the defendants in their individual and official capacities relating to his classification as a sex offender by the wardens and the allegedly unconstitutional conditions and constitutional violations resulting from the classification. (See doc. 15 at 13-15; doc. 17.)
On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri, Springfield Division, to receipt and distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), and was sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a life term of supervised release. (See Case No. 6:15-CR-3073-BP-1 (W.D. Mo.), docs. 24, 25, 34.) The warden of FCI-Seagoville, where he was incarcerated, classified him as a sex offender under Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Policy Statement (PS) 5100.08. (See doc. 15 at 6; doc. 17 at 5.) The warden's successor maintained the classification. (See doc. 15 at 7; doc 17 at 11-12.) On or around December 7, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a BOP Request for Administrative Remedy challenging his classification on the basis that his offense of conviction was not a sex offense under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. (See doc. 3 at 11.) Citing PS 5100.08, the warden denied his Request for Administrative Remedy. (See id.) Plaintiff's appeals to the regional director, and then to the BOP's general counsel, were also denied. (See id. at 10, 12-14; doc. 15 at 13.)
On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff was placed on a Correctional Management Plan (CMP) after one of the prison psychologists determined, based on his interpretation of PS 5100.08 and PS 5324.10, that Plaintiff had received publications by mail which contained sexually explicit content. (See doc. 15 at 8; doc. 17 at 16-17.) Plaintiff claims that he was obligated to participate in the CMP because of his classification as a sex offender. (See doc. 15 at 8; doc. 17 at 17.)
On December 26, 2018, one of the prison psychologists reviewed six envelopes from Gabe Edwards (Gabby's Lounge) addressed to Plaintiff, which had been intercepted by mail room officials and sent to the psychology staff for review. (See doc. 15 at 8; doc. 17 at 20.) Plaintiff did not receive a confiscation or rejection notice for these materials. (See id.) The prison psychologist determined that the contents of the envelope included "risk-relevant" materials and issued an incident report for violating conditions of his CMP on December 28, 2018, which was delivered to Plaintiff by one of the compound Lieutenants. (See doc. 15 at 8-9, 19.)
On August 12, 2019, one of the prison psychologists reviewed publications mailed to Plaintiff which had been delivered to psychology staff by mail room officials. (See doc. 15 at 8; doc. 17 at 17.) The psychologist refused to provide Plaintiff with a confiscation notice. (See doc. 17 at 15.) The mail contained sexually graphic stories, and because Plaintiff was classified as a sex offender and had been placed on a CMP, he was issued another incident report, which was delivered to him by one of the Lieutenants. (See doc. 15 at 8-9, 20.) Plaintiff received another incident report on August 19, 2019, for violating the conditions of his CMP after one of the psychologists reviewed a mail room official's rejection letter of mail from 4 the Pack Entertainment because the materials contained sexually explicit photos. (See doc. 17 at 72.) He did not receive a rejection notice. (See id. at 45, 49.)
On January 28, 2020, one of the Lieutenants and a correctional officer allegedly searched Plaintiff's legal paperwork in his unit's legal storage area and confiscated approximately 150 images of scantily clad and provocatively posed women and 30 images of girls. (See doc. 15 at 10, 12, 21; doc. 17 at 32, 56.) They then delivered the confiscated images to one of the prison psychologists, who in turn created an incident report for another of the Lieutenants to issue to Plaintiff for violating the conditions of his CMP. (See doc. 15 at 9-10, 12, 21; doc. 17 at 32-33,56-57.) Neither the Lieutenants, correctional officer, nor psychologist provided Plaintiff with a confiscation notice. (See doc. 15 at 9-10, 12.) On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary hearing notice for his January 28, 2020 noncompliance with his CMP. (See id. at 23.)
On January 31, 2020, a correctional officer searched Plaintiff's locker and bunk and confiscated several binders of erotica and images depicting pornography. (See doc. 15 at 12, 22; doc. 17 at 62.) Plaintiff did not receive a confiscation notice. (See doc. 15 at 12; doc. 17 at 62-63.) Based on the confiscated erotica binders and other erotica and pornography, one of the Lieutenants delivered an incident report to Plaintiff on February 1, 2020, for possession of an unauthorized item. (See doc. 15 at 10, 22; doc. 17 at 37, 39.)
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff challenges his classification as a sex offender under PS 5100.08 on the grounds that his offense of receipt and distribution of child pornography is not a sex offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5, and he claims he was denied due process in connection with the classification because the warden "fail[ed] to provide the plaintiff an opportunity to clear his name, and disprove the classification., which gives rise to the stigma of being classified as sex offender." (doc. 17 at 5; see also doc. 15 at 6, 13.) His classification as a sex offender allegedly resulted in his placement on a CMP, which obligated him to participate in a mandatory treatment program. (See doc. 15 at 14.) If not for his classification as a sex offender or the obligation to participate in mandatory treatment, he "would not have been [ ]referred to psychology or given any incident reports" and subject to all the searches, confiscations, and/or rejections by the various defendants that are directly related to his classification. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, his placement on a CMP also violated due process because he was not convicted of a sex offense under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5, violated his First Amendment and equal protection rights, and constituted a "stigma-plus infringement of [his] liberty interests." (doc. 17 at 17.)
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights were violated because he was not given any confiscation or rejection notices for the publications and images that were the subject of the CMP assignment and incident reports. (See doc. 15 at 15; doc. 17 at 7, 15, 19-20, 23-24, 27, 29, 32, 34, 37, 39, 44-45, 48-49, 52-53, 56, 58, 62-63.) He argues that the publications and images were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, and that their confiscation and rejection violated his rights under it, as did the BOP's mail filtering policies and application of the Ensign Amendment. (See doc. 15 at 11-12, 14-15; doc. 17 at 3, 7-8, 12, 15, 20, 24, 29, 34, 39, 45, 48-49, 52-53, 58, 62-63.) The defendants also allegedly violated his equal protection rights by confiscating and rejecting the images and publications and by issuing him incident reports. (See doc. 17 at 15-16, 20, 24-25, 29-30, 44-45, 48-49, 52, 62-63.)
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were part of a conspiracy to violate his civil rights and coerce, deprive, prevent or hinder his exercise of his due process, equal protection, and First Amendment constitutional rights. (See doc. 17 at 2-4, 7-8, 11-12, 16, 19, 21, 23-24, 28, 30, 32-34, 38-39, 45-46, 50, 53-54, 56-58, 63-64.) He seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief and injunctive relief "against the [CMP], sex offender classification, and mail filtering policies." (doc. 15 at 16; see also doc. 17 at 67.)
Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial