Simmons v. Williams

• Decision Date: 09 August 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-111
• Parties: ANTONIO SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS; JAMES DEAL; WAYNE JOHNSON; ERIC SMOKES; JOHNNY DAVIS; RONNIE BYNUM; CURTIS WHITFIELD; ANTONIO ABALOS; JOHNATHAN SANTIAGO; ZECHARIAH JONES; PAUL GRIFFIN; and ANDREW MCFARLANE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

ANTONIO SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS; JAMES DEAL; WAYNE JOHNSON;ERIC SMOKES; JOHNNY DAVIS; RONNIE BYNUM; CURTIS WHITFIELD;ANTONIO ABALOS; JOHNATHAN SANTIAGO; ZECHARIAH JONES; PAUL GRIFFIN;and ANDREW MCFARLANE, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:14-cv-111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

August 9, 2017

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia, filed this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq., contesting certain conditions of his confinement. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 41), to which Plaintiff filed a Response, (doc. 54). In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 46), four Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (docs. 71, 72, 73, 75), and a Motion for Injunction, (doc. 83).

The Court should DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (doc. 46), DENY Plaintiff's Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, (docs. 71, 72, 73, 75), and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction, (doc. 83). Further, for the reasons which follow, the Court should GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 41). Specifically, I RECOMMEND the following:

• The Court should GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation and forced shaving claims. Due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those claims, the Court should DISMISS those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

• The Court should GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Procedural Due Process Claims, and DISMISS those claims for failure to state a claim.

• The Court should GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims based on the exposure of Plaintiff's awrah. The Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for monetary relief, but his RLUIPA claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on the exposure of his awrah should remain pending against Defendants Abalos, Davis, Griffin, Santiago, and Whitfield.

• The Court should GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment claims based on the exposure of his awrah. The Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's First Amendment claims for monetary relief based on the exposure of his awrah, but his First Amendment claims based on the exposure of his awrah for injunctive and declaratory relief should remain pending against Defendants Abalos, Davis, Griffin, Santiago, and Whitfield.

• The Court should GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims. The Court should DISMISS Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for monetary relief, but Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants Abalos, Whitfield, and Santiago should remain pending.

• The Court should DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims. Plaintiff's excessive force claim based on the use of pepper spray should remain pending against Defendants Abalos and Whitfield. Plaintiff's excessive force claim based on the use of a "chicken wing maneuver" should remain pending against Abalos, Whitfield, and Santiago.

• The Court should DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to intervene claims. Plaintiff's claims for failure to intervene during the use of pepper spray and during the use of a "chicken wing maneuver" should remain pending against Defendants Williams, Deal, Johnson, McFarlane, Smokes, Davis, and Griffin. Plaintiff's failure to intervene claim during the use of pepper spray should also remain pending against Defendant Santiago.

• The Court should DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claims. These claims should remain pending against Defendants Whitfield, Santiago, Griffin, Abalos, Williams, Deal, Smokes, Johnson, and McFarlane.

• The Court should GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims and DISMISS those claims for failure to state a claim.

• The Court should DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's supervisory liability claims as Plaintiff does not base his claims on Defendants' mere supervisory position.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff contends that Defendants Whitfield, Santiago, Abalos, Griffin, Williams, Deal, Johnson, McFarlane, and Smokes subjected him to two instances of excessive force on April 12, 2013, during a shakedown of his dormitory, which led to a spate of additional constitutional violations. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Whitfield and Santiago led Correctional Emergency Response Team ("CERT") officers² to his cell while he and his cellmate were reading the Qu'ran. (Doc. 1, p. 6.) Defendant Santiago then ordered Plaintiff to submit to a body cavity search, which required Plaintiff to remove his clothes, bend over at the waist, and spread his buttocks so officers could visually inspect his anal cavity. (Id.) Plaintiff contends he informed Defendant Santiago that his religious beliefs prohibited him from being naked in the presence of another man and he, therefore, could not comply with the search. (Id. at p. 7.) Plaintiff requested that Defendants allow him to comply in an alternate manner. (Id.)

Following Plaintiff's request, Defendant Whitfield agreed to conduct the search in a manner comporting with Plaintiff's beliefs. (Id. at p. 9.) Shortly thereafter, however, Defendant Whitfield directed Defendant Abalos to spray Plaintiff with pepper spray. (Id. at p. 10.) After Defendant Abalos sprayed Plaintiff, Defendants left Plaintiff in his cell for thirty to forty-five minutes. During this period of time, Plaintiff could not breathe and intermittently lost consciousness. Plaintiff avers that Defendants ignored his requests for medical attention during this time. After this time passed, the CERT team returned to Plaintiff's cell and threatened to spray him again if he did not comply with the body cavity search. (Id. at pp. 11-12.) Plaintiffthen submitted to a body cavity search "under force[,] [ ] threat, duress[,] and coercion." (Id. at p. 12.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants Williams, Deal, Johnson, McFarlane, and Smokes watched these events unfold but did nothing. (Id.)

After Defendant Abalos conducted the body cavity search, unnamed officers placed Plaintiff in a shower without running water for ten to fifteen minutes. (Id. at p. 13.) Plaintiff was "left inside [the] shower burning and unable to see." (Id.) While in the shower, he "pleaded for the help and assistance of Warden Williams, James Deal, and Captain McFarlane" but his "[pleas and cries] went unanswered." (Id.) CERT team officers later placed Plaintiff in a functional shower, but the water temperature was too hot and intensified Plaintiff's burning and pain. (Id.) When Plaintiff called to Defendant Williams from the shower in pain, Defendant Williams replied that Plaintiff should have complied with orders. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts Defendants Williams, Deal, and McFarlane knew he was in pain and in need of medical attention but did nothing to help him.

After his shower, the CERT team attempted to escort Plaintiff to the medical unit. However, Plaintiff fainted during this escort. (Id. at p. 14.) Defendants Abalos and Santiago then dragged Plaintiff to the medical unit using the "chicken wing" maneuver, which dislocated Plaintiff's shoulder. While being dragged to the shower and to the medical unit, Plaintiff's "awrah"³—which he describes as the area between his waist and knees—was exposed because prison staff provided him only one pair of white boxer shorts to wear. (Id. at pp. 12, 14.) Upon his arrival to the medical unit, medical staff provided no medical treatment to Plaintiff. (Id. at p. 15.) Following these events, Plaintiff was not allowed to clean or sanitize his cell for one totwo weeks, even though the cell, his bedding, and his belongings were covered in pepper spray. As a result, Plaintiff's skin broke out in rashes and hives. (Id. at p. 16.)

Plaintiff alleges that, shortly thereafter, Defendants launched a campaign of retaliation against him. First, Defendant Abalos served a false disciplinary report upon Plaintiff immediately following Plaintiff's body cavity search. While serving this disciplinary report on Plaintiff, Defendant Abalos reminded Plaintiff that he had been told to withdraw his previously-filed grievances. (Id.) Following this encounter, Plaintiff called the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") hotline and reported the alleged sexual assault and misconduct by the officers during his body cavity search. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that, after calling the PREA hotline, he filed another grievance pertaining to those events on April 15, 2013.

Two days later, Defendant Johnson threatened to file disciplinary reports against Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's utilization of the PREA hotline and for filing another grievance. (Id. at p. 17.) Plaintiff alleges he then received another false disciplinary report from Defendant Johnson. Plaintiff contends that, during the disciplinary hearings on these two disciplinary reports, Defendant Bynum denied his rights to call witnesses and to present evidence. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Bynum then imposed severe and unconstitutional punishment on him for the purpose of retaliation, including nine (9) months' outdoor recreation restriction and 450 days' commissary, telephone, and package restrictions. According to Plaintiff, the sanctions he received "resulted in conditions of confinement that are much worse than what is normal for prisoners." (Id. at p. 19.)

Plaintiff also sets forth related events which allegedly occurred from June 13, 2013, through April 3, 2014. Plaintiff characterizes these events as...