Swanson v. Gaston Cnty. Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 24 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 3:18-cv-86-FDW |
| Parties | BENJAMIN GODWIN SWANSON, Plaintiff, v. GASTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See (Doc. No. 6).
Pro se Plaintiff filed the Complaint while incarcerated in the Mecklenburg County Jail and complains about incidents that occurred in the Gaston County Jail. He seeks relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Prison Rape Elimination Act, 34 U.S.C. § 30301 et seq. ("PREA"). Plaintiff names as Defendants in their official and individual capacities: the Gaston County Sheriff's Department; and Gaston County Jail employees Major and Assistant Jail Administrator Becky Cauthran, Deputy M. Becton, and Detention Officer H. Nolan.
Construing the Amended Complaint liberally and accepting it as true, in Spring 2017, Plaintiff was experiencing difficulty "getting a spot" in the phone line "due to it being unlawfully governed by inmate gangs, thus, Gang Activity." (Doc. No. 11 at 3). The Gaston County Jail has zero tolerance for gang activity pursuant to the jail handbook. Plaintiff complained to "Administrators" and was asked to provide more details about how they were governing the phones and he did so on the Jail's electronic kiosk. (Doc. No. 11 at 3). Sgt. Lomick can confirm that, at one time, inmates were trying to "run the phone line," and jail officials were aware "and worked together to stop the illegal activity." (Doc. No. 11 at 3).
Plaintiff was moved from Echo Dorm to the higher-security Alpha Dorm at the Gaston County Jail on May 17, 2017, because Defendant Becton did not like Plaintiff's "personal conduct" that included: helping illiterate inmates, helping new inmates use the complex phone system, helping senior citizens cut their toenails, talking about jail regulations with other inmates, educating others to prevent them from getting in trouble, and frequently speaking to other jail officials about changing policy to make the facility safer for everyone. (Doc. No. 11 at 2). Plaintiff claims that none of these activities violated jail policy.
After being moved to the higher security dorm, Nolan said to Plaintiff, "I heard about you, you're in my territory now." (Doc. No. 11 at 3). Plaintiff does not know what she meant by that and it has Plaintiff greatly concerned for his welfare. He asked to speak with any captain about the groundless classification decision. Defendant Becton decided to speak to Plaintiff in Oats' presence in the library. Becton denied any involvement in the housing assignment, and said Plaintiff was belligerent and he "needed to mind [his] own damn business." (Doc. No. 11 at 3).
Several days later, Plaintiff asked to speak to "mental health" about "some anxiety he was experiencing because of the decision classification made." (Doc. No. 11 at 4). Mental Health Counselor Andrew Berger found a "Secret Report" written by Becton, indicating that Becton was involved in the transfer decision despite her denials, "because she wrote it, and ordered her officers not to tell Swanson." (Doc. No. 11 at 4). Berger told Plaintiff in an electronic message never to contact him again and that he wanted no part in the retaliation by Becton.
Days later, Plaintiff noted a significant change in officers' attitude towards him. A deputy who asked to remain anonymous told him that "Becton [was] talking about you in our meetings this week," and "to harass you by any means." (Doc. No. 11 at 4). Plaintiff filed a grievance asking to speak to Becton, which was granted. Plaintiff told her that he found out she lied about the retaliation and that she had a personal problem with him helping stop the gang activity on the phones. Becton then "verbally confessed to the findings." (Doc. No. 11 at 5). Becton further disclosed that she felt Plaintiff had too much intelligence and that his name is frequently brought up at meetings. She said she was not there to be nice or friendly. She "doesn't like inmates feeling comfortable" and it was Plaintiff's fault for asking for assistance from Becton about the phones. (Doc. No. 11 at 4). Plaintiff said he was asked to help and that jail officials are encouraged to work together and nobody has to be "mean, evil or enemies." (Doc. No. 11 at 5). Carson immediately stated that Plaintiff is correct but Becton did not agree. Becton understood how her actions violated Plaintiff's rights, stating "It's time for you to see new [illegible]," and her statement had no penological justification. (Doc. No. 11 at 5). Plaintiff submitted a grievance to Defendant Cauthran in efforts to remedy the incident. Multiple requests to respond to the grievance were denied between May and June 28, 2017 and not responses were received.
On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff was placed on "privilege restriction" by Defendant Nolan for having a towel at the tables in the dorm. Plaintiff informed Nolan that he was ordered to place towels at the tables while out for recreation if towels are not being used, by Officer Branch on June 27. Nolan claimed that Plaintiff was placed on privilege restrictions because Plaintiff was given two direct orders and complied with the most recent order pertaining to towels, and no fault of Plaintiff's resulted in her anger. That afternoon, Plaintiff advised Nolan that he needed to submit a grievance pursuant to the Jail Handbook, and Nolan told him "this is what you get for making my friends mad." (Doc. No. 11 at 6). Sgt. Frady also refused to speak to Plaintiff. That same day, video footage will show multiple inmates in violation of the code of conduct including having towels at tables, but nobody else was reprimanded for the same thing on June 28. Nolan and her supervisory made a rule that is not in accordance with the jail, stating that inmates were not allowed to use towels unless they were drying off. This created a PREA issue against inmates. Plaintiff submitted a PREA complaint against Nolan and her supervisor via the Jail kiosk. The next day, Plaintiff received two responses from PREA coordinators Cauthran and Deputy Assistant chief Darrell Griffin. Griffin spoke privately about what happened and explained that "staff voyeurism" could happen if inmates were not allowed to use towels as privacy curtains in the shower. (Doc. No. 11 at 7). Cauthran replied via kiosk asking for more information because his claim was valid, and Plaintiff replied as requested. Griffin inspected the doors and agreed there was a valid claim and worked on getting bigger shower doors. A staff employee, Mike, measured the doors. A memo was sent by Griffin to confirm this. Becton intercepted Plaintiff's response to the PREA coordinator and replied posing as a PREA coordinator, stating Plaintiff's claim was invalid. Becton did not know that the claim was already deemed valid and approved twice. Jail officials have the option to view complaints on officers on different shifts. They also have the option to respond for other officers but rarely do so. Becton and Nolan are conspiring against Plaintiff to cover up violations whenever Plaintiff tried to grieve an issue. On July 1, 2017, the grievance against Nolan for the June 28, 2017 incident was denied by three officials , because Plaintiff was being disrespectful. However, Plaintiff was never written up for that and video footage shows that he complied with all orders on June 28.
Any time Nolan was scheduled to work in the Alpha dorm, "she made sure Swanson was denied of anything possible" including razors, soap, sharpened pencils, and answers to questions. (Doc. No. 11 at 8). This was done on purpose to get revenge for her "friend" Benton. (Doc. No. 11 at 8). Plaintiff sent requests and grievances for every incident against the wrong being done every time but he never received a remedy for Nolan and Benton retaliating against him.
When Plaintiff spoke to Becton and Carson in the library several weeks ago, he explained with handwritten charts and lots the harassment with documentation correlating to the video system to prove his grievances. Carson reviewed the papers and was relieved to find his name was not on it. Carson kept reading and asked Becton "why she was violating procedure." (Doc. No. 11 at 8). Becton was upset when presented with the documents and said "see, there you go again, you need to mind your business." (Doc. No. 11 at 9).
On August 1, 2017, Nolan left the keys in the drop box unattended in Alpha dorm long enough for an inmate to have possession, which is contraband. Plaintiff witnessed it and had to report it for safety and pursuant to the Jail handbook. Nolan was sent home or reprimanded.
On August 6, 2017, Plaintiff asked Nolan if he could call his lawyer and she said "No! oh hell no!" then stated "oh, and go ahead, write it down in your little notebook." (Doc. No. 11 at 9). There was no way Nolan would have known about his notebook without being informed. Becton and Carson were the only ones who knew about the notebook at that time. Therefore, Becton must have informed Nolan.
On August 6, 2017, Nolan allowed inmates who had their phone privileges revoked to use the phone. This was to taunt Plaintiff.
On August 10, 2017, Nolan conducted a cell search and, allegedly, randomly selected Plaintiff. Matthew Soles, Plaintiff's roommate at the time, was instructed to sit at the table. Plaintiff was immediately escorted to the book-in/intake holding cells. About an hour later, Plaintiff returned to see everything in disarray and legal mail pertaining to this case missing. Soles told Plaintiff that, while Nolan was searching, she kept repeating to herself and when she found something she stated then ended the search. (Doc. No. 11 at 10). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial