Washington v. Reliance Tel. Sys. & McLean Cnty.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cv-124 |
| Parties | Anthony M. Washington, Plaintiff, v. Reliance Telephone Systems and McLean County, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota |
Anthony M. Washington, Plaintiff,
v.
Reliance Telephone Systems and McLean County, Defendants.
No. 1:19-cv-124
United States District Court, D. North Dakota
December 2, 2022
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CLARE R. HOCHHALTER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT
Before the court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant McLean County. (Doc. No. 44). Also before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Reliance Telephone Systems (“Reliance”). (Doc. No. 53). For the reasons that follow, both motions are granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Anthony M. Washington (“Washington”) was a pretrial detainee at the McLean County Jail (hereafter referred to as the “Jail”) in Washburn, North Dakota, when he initiated the above-captioned action pro se and in forma pauperis. Since initiating this action he has been convicted of two Class A misdemeanors and served the sentence imposed by the state district court. He now resides in Detroit, Michigan.
Washington had one claim against McLean County and Reliance that survived initial review, the gist of which is that he was denied the ability to privately communicate with counsel while in custody in violation of his constitutional rights.
On March 15, 2021, McLean County filed a motion for summary judgment. That same day Reliance filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions have now been fully briefed
and are ripe for the court's consideration.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, indicates that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Davison v. City of Minneapolis, 490 F.3d 648, 654 (8th Cir. 2007); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is not appropriate if there are factual disputes that may affect the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is genuine if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. The purpose of summary judgment is to assess the evidence and determine if a trial is genuinely necessary. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The Court must inquire whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require the submission of the case to a jury or whether the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Diesel Mach., Inc. v. B.R. Lee Indus., Inc., 418 F.3d 820, 832 (8th Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The non-moving party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). If the record taken as a whole and viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Underlying Facts
The following facts are either undisputed or are presumed to be true for the purposes of this order.
Washington was charged in McLean County by way of an Information with two Class C felonies, a Class A misdemeanor, and a Class B misdemeanor. (Doc. Nos. 46-11, 46-12). He was arrested in Michigan and extradited to North Dakota. (Doc. No. 46-10). He arrived in North Dakota and was booked into the Jail on May 18, 2019. (Doc. No. 46-10). He was first represented by attorney Paul Merkins and, when Mr. Merkins was granted leave to withdraw, by attorney Steven Balaban. (Doc. Nos. 46-11 through 46-19). Pursuant to an agreement he reached with the prosecution, he entered guilty pleas on October 2, 2022, to two Class A misdemeanors and was sentenced by the state district court to 360 days incarceration, with 156 days credit for time served. (Doc. No. 46-20, 47). He served his sentence at the Jail. He was discharged from the Jail on or about February 29, 2022.
Washington learned within months of being booked into the Jail that several of his telephone calls to counsel had been recorded. He initiated that above-entitled action pro se and in forma pauperis on June 20, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 1 through 6). He alleged that Jail staff had intentionally monitored, listened in on, and otherwise recorded several of his telephone calls with counsel. (Doc. No. 6). He further alleges that the recordings of these calls and/or the information gleaned from these calls by staff were passed to the prosecution for use against him in his criminal case. (Id.). The prosecuting State's Attorney has attested that he neither has any information or used any information from Washington's attorney calls against him or to gain an unfair advantage in his
criminal case. (Doc. No. 47). Jail staff who had contact with Washington while in custody have also attested that they did not direct the recording of or otherwise listen in on Washington's attorney calls and did not otherwise conspire with or provide information to the prosecutors in Washington's criminal case. (Doc. Nos. 48 through 52).
The Jail has a “custody manual” that provides the following with respect to inmate telephone calls:
502.8 INMATE TELEPHONE CALLS
Every inmate detained in this facility shall be entitled to at least one completed telephone call upon being admitted and no later than three hours after arrest. The calls may be of a duration that reasonably allows the inmate to make necessary arrangements for matters that he/she may be unable to complete as a result of being arrested. The calls are not intended to be lengthy conversations and the custody staff may use their judgment in determining the reasonable duration of the calls. If it is determined that the person is a custodial parent with responsibility for a minor child, the person shall be entitled to make such additional telephone calls as reasonably necessary for the purpose of arranging care for the minor child
There is no obligation for the custody staff to make a telephone call on an inmate's behalf, for example in the case of a person who is so intoxicated that he/she cannot make a call. The custody staff is not required to wake an intoxicated person so that the person may complete a call. An intoxicated person should be provided the opportunity to make the telephone calls once the person awakes.
502.8.1 TELEPHONE CALL PROCEDURES
The Office will pay the cost of local calls. Long distance calls will be paid by the inmate, using calling cards or by calling collect.
Calls between the inmate and his/her attorney shall be deemed confidential and shall not be monitored, eavesdropped upon or recorded.
502.8.2 ONGOING TELEPHONE ACCESS
Ongoing telephone access for inmates who are housed at this facility will be in accordance with the Inmate Telephone Access Policy.
(Doc. No. 46-6) (emphasis added).
The Jail also has an inmate handbook to which Washington had continuous access while he
was incarcerated. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 46-5 at pp. 61-62, and 48). There were at least two versions of the handbook, the first dated March 1, 2016, and the second dated November 1, 2019, that were in circulation during the pendency of Washington's incarceration at the Jail. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8, 46-35 at p. 16, 48). Both versions provided the following with respect to telephone calls by detainees:
You are allowed one (1) initial call upon admission at County Expense. The initial call will not be given until booking process and fingerprinting is completed. Inmates housed for agencies under contract do not receive the initial telephone call. All other calls you make are at your own expense. Personal phone calls may be made & received from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily on the phones located in or near your cell area. Directions on how to use the phone is posted in your cell area. You may purchase phone cards from the McLean County Jail from the Turnkey Kiosk. There is not a refund for lost cards or for time left on the card when you leave. All calls are recorded and may be monitored. You may check for incoming calls by dialing the first three (3) letters of your last name. Voice messages are only saved for three (3) days. All calls made to health care providers, clergy, human services, attorneys and bondsman will have priority over personal calls and you may make or receive these calls at any time. If you are indigent, you will be allowed (1) personal calls per week, which will be approved by the Jail Administrator. All long distance calls you make will be at your own expense. You may use a calling card or it must be made COLLECT. This includes calls made to health care providers, clergy, human services, attorneys and bondsman. You are allowed 3 minutes per call for personal calls. Keep in mind the Correction Officers have other duties and personal phone calls are secondary to security duties. All calls are recorded and possibly monitored. If your call is to an attorney and you do not want the call recorded, you have to request the call be made on a non-recorded line. All other calls requested on a non-recorded line will be at officer's discretion.
(Doc. Nos. 7 at p. 5, 8 at p. 5) (emphasis added). Hard copies of the handbook were placed in the Jail's dorm areas. (Doc. No. 46-35 at pp. 61-62). A digital copy of the handbook was also loaded onto a kiosk that the Jail's inmates could access. (Id. at p. 16).
The record reflects that...
To continue reading
Request your trial