Smith v. Kidd
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-0857-CG-N |
| Decision Date | 20 May 2021 |
| Parties | COURTNEY SMITH, # 181090, Plaintiff, v. ASHLEY KIDD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983. This action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R). After careful review, it is recommended that the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Kidd based on Plaintiff's administrative segregation confinement from December 2, 2018 to February 13, 2019 (when he was reclassified) be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend for the purpose of stating a claim against Defendant Kidd based on this period of administrative segregation confinement, and it is further recommended that the other claims in this action against Defendant Ashley Kidd and Defendant Darren Wright be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff's third amended complaint, which is Court-ordered. (Doc. 18, PageID.51). Plaintiff named as Defendants officials at Holman Correctional Facility (“Holman”), Lieutenant Ashley Kidd and Correctional Officer Darren Wright. (Id. at 5, PageID.55). According to Plaintiff, Defendant Kidd falsely charged him with a violation of Administrative Regulation 403, no. 901, homicide, which resulted in his placement in administrative segregation for thirty-plus months[1], while capital murder charges are pending in state court. (Id. at 8, PageID.58). He alleges Defendant Kidd violated the Eighth Amendment, “deliberate indifference, ” and Administrative Regulation, Rule 403. (Id.). On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff was served a disciplinary for homicide by Officer Toles. (Id.). The arresting officer on the charge was Defendant Kidd. (Id.). On December 26, 2018, Sergeant Ratcliffe held the disciplinary hearing where Defendant Kidd testified that “the information she received le[]d to inmate Courtney Smith #181090 [as the person who] did stab inmate Armstrong.” (Id. at 9, PageID.59). She stated, however, that Plaintiff was not found with a weapon so if he did not “stab inmate Armstrong, then he was the lead man [who] set up the stabbing.” (Id.). Moreover, she testified, “Officer Wright identified [Plaintiff] as one of the involved inmates [although she is] not sure how he identified Plaintiff but that[']s what he reported to me.” (Id.).
At the disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was sitting on a bed with “his cousin, ” inmate Garrett, in the front of the dorm when inmate Armstrong ran to where he and inmate Garrett were sitting. (Id.). He saw inmate Armstrong bleeding, so he stood back, and inmate Armstrong ran to the gate. (Id.). Plaintiff's witness, inmate Booker, testified that he had no knowledge of the incident. (Id.). Plaintiff's other witness, inmate Garrett, testified that Plaintiff, also known as CoCo, was on his bed when inmate “Westgate”[2] got stabbed. (Id.). Plaintiff's third witness, Lieutenant McKenzie, testified that it was reported to him that day that members of the Blood gang were responsible for the stabbing. (Id. at 10, PageID.25). His “intel” said that Plaintiff was not involved, and to his knowledge, Plaintiff is a “GD.”[3] (Id.).
Nonetheless, the incident report had reflected that Officer Wright witnessed Plaintiff stabbing inmate Armstrong. (Id.). Thus, Sergeant Ratcliffe placed a telephone call to Defendant Wright who said that he had not “actually witnessed [Plaintiff] stabbing inmate Armstrong, but [Plaintiff] did appear to have a knife.” (Id.).
The hearing officer, Sergeant Ratcliffe, found that Plaintiff was not involved in the incident even though he was in the dorm where the stabbing occurred. (Id.).
He found Plaintiff not guilty due to the absence of “concrete evidence . . . that le[]d to inmate Smith doing or being involved in the stabbing” and to Wright's and Kidd's testimonies being inconsistent with the incident report. (Id. & at 19, PageID.69).
Plaintiff attached to the third amended complaint a copy of the disciplinary report as Exhibit C. (Id. at 16, PageID.66). Plaintiff's allegations in the third amended complaint tracked the information contained in the disciplinary report.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wright “under sworn oath” in the incident report falsely accused him of the stabbing and murder of inmate Armstrong, causing Plaintiff to fear for his life in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Administrative Regulation 403. (Id. at 11, PageID.61). Presently, Plaintiff is suffering in administrative segregation due to Defendant Wright. (Id.).
Plaintiff maintains on December 2, 2018, Defendant Wright spoke with Investigator SA Jones telling Jones that he recognized an inmate known as Cocoa as one of the four inmates who stabbed inmate Armstrong. (Id. at 12, PageID.62). Defendant Wright said that he did not know Cocoa's real name, but Cocoa was a black man with a beard, and he could pick him out of a lineup. (Id.). On December 2, 2018, SA Jones and agent Gary Peek presented Defendant Wright with a photo lineup of nine photographs. (Id.). Defendant Wright positively identified photo #2, who was “inmate Courtney Smith B/prisoner #263443.” (Id.). Even though Plaintiff, Courtney Maurice Smith, #181090, has a name like inmate Courtney Smith, #263443, they are two different prisoners. (Id.). Plaintiff knows the other Courtney Smith is a Blood gang member. (Id. at 13, PageID.63). Nevertheless, Plaintiff is now facing the death penalty for a crime he did not commit and has been housed in administrative segregation for seventeen months while the murder charge is pending in Escambia County. (Id.). Plaintiff presented the mistaken identity problem to the attention of the Alabama Department of Corrections, but he has been repeatedly ignored. (Id.). In the meantime, he has lost all privileges that population inmates have, such as access to “educational programs, religion service[s], extra yard time, etc etc.” (Id.).
Attached to the third amended complaint is the classification summary for Plaintiff's reclassification to close custody and security level 5, with a listing of approved institutions for his placement. (Id. at 23, PageID.73). The comments sections and institution recommendation from his classification summary read:
(Id.). The specialist's submission was for close custody, security level 5, which was agreed with by the Central Review Board, psych associate, and warden. (Id.).
Additionally, Plaintiff attached as exhibit F, page two from what appears to be a four-page incident report. (Id. at 24, PageID.74). Its purpose appears to be to support Plaintiff's claim that two prisoners with the name of Courtney Smith were at Holman at the time of the stabbing, and he is innocent of the stabbing as the other Courtney Smith was identified as the assailant. (Id.). This page reiterates that on December 2, 2018, Defendant Wright identified inmate Courtney Smith B/263443, who is known as Cocoa, as one of the four inmates who stabbed inmate Armstrong. (Id.).
Exhibit F's incident report adds that Plaintiff was interviewed the following day, December 3, 2018, by SA Jones and Agent Peek. (Id.). Plaintiff was advised of his rights and waived them, and said his nickname was “Cocoa.” (Id.). Plaintiff told them that “he was asleep during the incident and did not see anything.” (Id.). Plaintiff denied stabbing inmate Armstrong and advised that Holman's A-Dorm is a war zone, which keeps one from sleeping in A-Dorm. (Id.). They noted this inconsistency with Plaintiff's other statement to them - he was asleep at the time of the incident.[4] (Id.). Plaintiff was informed that he was positively identified from a photographic lineup as one of the four inmates who stabbed inmate Armstrong. (Id.). Plaintiff reiterated that he was asleep during the incident and did not know anything. (Id.). He also stated that he had known inmate Armstrong for a long time. (Id.). They also interviewed inmate Garrett who advised that he was not inmate Armstrong's uncle, but younger inmates referred to him as their uncle. (Id.). He said that he knew nothing of the incident but was noted as “visibly shaking and extremely nervous” and wanting to go to his dorm. (Id.).
Later that day, SA Jones went to the Escambia County Courthouse and signed a warrant against Plaintiff for murder. (Id.). The next day SA Jones and agent David Martinez re-interviewed Plaintiff who did not provide any...
To continue reading
Request your trial