Skundor v. Coleman, Civil Action No. 5:02-0205 (S.D. W.Va. 7/31/2003)
| Decision Date | 31 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 5:02-0205. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | DAVID SKUNDOR, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL COLEMAN, formerly Acting Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his official and personal capacities, THOMAS McBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, in his official capacity, and ROBERT DANIEL, in his personal capacity, Defendants. |
Pending are the following matters: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against Defendant Michael Coleman (Document No. 37.); (2) Motion of Thomas McBride and Robert Daniel to Deny Class Certification (Document No. 38.); (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document No. 41.); and (4) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 43.). The undersigned has concluded and hereby recommends that the District Court GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against Defendant Michael Coleman and the Motion of Thomas McBride and Robert Daniel to Deny Class Certification, DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and GRANT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff an inmate designated for misconduct to the Quilliams II Segregation Unit at Mount Olive Correctional Complex [MOCC], acting pro se, filed his Complaint in this matter on March 8, 2002, seeking to initiate a class action alleging violations of constitutional and civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 (Document No. 2.) Thus, obviously complaining of alleged constitutional and civil rights violations occurring prior to March 8, 2002, he named as Plaintiffs himself and "the class of similarly situated persons being all prisoners housed in the Quilliams I and II Units at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex." He stated that the class consisted of approximately 238 prisoners. Id., ¶ 4. He named Michael Coleman, then acting Warden of Mount Olive Correctional Complex [MOCC] as Defendant. Plaintiff stated that he "is permitted one (1) hour of daily out-of-cell recreation five (5) times per week with a group of segregated prisoners." Id., ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleged that before a group of segregated inmates enter the recreation yard, prison officials search the yard for contraband and they observe the group of inmates while they are engaging in recreation. Id., ¶¶ 21 and 22. Plaintiff stated that he is subject to a visual body cavity search, also known as a VBC or strip search, each time he goes to and returns from the Quilliams II recreational yard which he describes as a large room "one wall of which is open to the elements and covered with chain link fencing. . . ." Id., ¶ 18.2 He complained that "when it is cold, Plaintiff . . . experiences physical pain from standing naked in the cold air." Id., ¶ 24.3 He further complained that during the visual body cavity searches, he is observed by other prisoners, correctional officers and female prison staff. Id., ¶ 26. He stated two claims for relief at ¶¶ 28 and 29 as follows:
Defendant Warden Coleman's policy of performing routine VBC searches on the Rec Yard in the presence of persons not required for conducting the searches, including members of the opposite sex, is not reasonably related to penological concerns and is in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Defendant Warden Coleman's policy of performing routine VBC searches on the Rec Yard in cold weather is not reasonably related to penological concerns and is in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiff requested a declaratory judgment asking the Court to declare Defendant's policies unconstitutional, an injunction against further visual body cavity searches on the recreation yard, nominal damages, costs and attorney's fees.
Plaintiff attached to his Complaint documents relating to efforts he made to exhaust administrative remedies. Exhibit A is a G-1 Grievance Form dated November 6, 2000, indicating Plaintiff's complaints about visual body cavity searches "(1) in front of other prisoners [and] in. . . a visibly accessible area; (2) outdoors."4 Exhibit B is a G-2 Grievance Form dated November 7, 2000, in which Plaintiff reiterates his complaints stating that he is "questioning the need for visual body cavity searches in the place where they are conducted * * * in front of other prisoners and passersby." Exhibit C is the MOCC reply dated November 16, 2000. The MOCC Warden at the time, Mr. Painter, replied that Exhibit D is Plaintiff's Memorandum to Commissioner Kirby of the West Virginia Department of Corrections dated November 21, 2000, regarding his grievance appeal. Exhibit E is a Memorandum to Plaintiff from Leslie Tyree, General Counsel to the West Virginia Division of Corrections, dated November 28, 2000, adopting Warden Painter's response to Plaintiff's G-2 Grievance Form and notifying Plaintiff that "you are free to seek redress of your grievance through an appropriate civil court."
On October 23, 2002, the Court ordered Defendant to submit an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint within twenty days of receipt of the Court's Order. (Document No. 15.) On November 13, 2002, Defendant Coleman filed his Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint denying all allegations of conduct infringing upon Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Document No. 17.) Mr. Coleman disputed Plaintiff's entitlement to proceed in behalf of a class of Plaintiffs citing the Fourth Circuit's decision in Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975).5 He further raised numerous defenses affirmatively including Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations and immunity.
As the record reflects, having leave of Court (Document No. 21.), counsel for the Defendant deposed Plaintiff on December 12, 2002. (Document No. 44, Exhibit A.) On December 19, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint attaching a copy of his proposed Amended Complaint to his Motion. (Document No. 29.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff named as Defendants Thomas McBride in his official capacity as Warden of MOCC and Robert Daniel, the Quilliams II Unit Commander who, Plaintiff claims, participated in a VBC search of him on February 25, 2002.6 (Document No. 29, Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff did not include Mr. Coleman as a Defendant in the style of the case and stated no allegations against Mr. Coleman in his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff raised the same allegations respecting visual body cavity searches in cold weather and in view of other prisoners, correctional officers and female prison staff. Id., ¶¶ 24 and 26. Stating additional facts pertinent to his accusations against Mr. McBride and Mr. Daniel, Plaintiff proposed to amend his Complaint to claim that the MOCC official policy of conducting VBC searches as alleged in his Complaint to violate the Fourth Amendment also violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Id., ¶¶ 28 and 29. He added the following claim for relief at ¶ 30:
The MOCC official policy of conducting routine VBC searches on the Rec Yard in cold weather constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in contravention of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
He further changed his request for relief to include, in addition to declaratory and injunctive relief as requested in his Complaint, the assessment of judgment against and damages from Mr. McBride and Mr. Daniel.
On January 2, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint. (Document No. 32.)7 On January 8, 2003, Mr. Coleman filed his Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint again claiming that Plaintiff could not proceed with the case in behalf of a class of inmates, denying all allegations of conduct infringing upon Plaintiff's constitutional rights and raising numerous affirmative defenses. (Document No. 36.) Likewise, on January 9, 2003, Mr. McBride and Mr. Daniel filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Deny Class Certification. (Document Nos. 38 and 39.) The Defendants attached as Exhibits to their Answers Post Orders evidencing the MOCC policy respecting escorting Quilliams inmates8, strip searching inmates9 and inmate recreation.10 Referring to these documents, Defendants admitted that male correctional officers strip search Plaintiff when he is moved from and returned to his cell. (Document Nos. 36 and 39, ¶¶ 13, 15 and 16.) They further admitted that inmates are strip searched when they leave the recreation yard "within a wire mesh `cage' which physically separates the inmates being strip searched from the inmates on the recreation yard." Id., ¶ 23. They admit that inmates are strip searched following recreation even if they take recreation by themselves. Id., ¶ 17. They also admit that "during strip searches prior to exiting the recreation yard, the plaintiff can be observed by (a): inmates on the recreation yard and (b) any correctional officer conducting the strip search." (Document No. 39, ¶ 26.) They admit that "an officer searches the recreation yard for contraband prior to prisoners entering the recreation area. (Document Nos. 36 and 39, ¶ 21.) They admit that they can observe the recreation yard while inmates are in recreation, but they "deny that officers have the ability to monitor the entire recreation area in a fashion that guarantees that no inmate possesses or obtains weapons or contraband while in contact with other inmates in the recreation area." They further note that "[t]he recreation area is the only area when inmates can have direct contact with each other and, hence, pass weapons or other contraband which is not found in the initial search of inmates." Id., ¶ 22. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial