Webb v. Butler

• Decision Date: 28 September 2021
• Docket Number: 5:18-CT-3127-FL
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR BUTLER, YOLANDA BANKS, E. GEORGE, V. FREDERICK, KENNETH BLACKWELL, and MARK SZAJNBERG, Defendants.[1]

NATHANIEL R. WEBB, Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR BUTLER, YOLANDA BANKS, E. GEORGE, V. FREDERICK, KENNETH BLACKWELL, and MARK SZAJNBERG, Defendants.^[1]

No. 5:18-CT-3127-FL

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

September 28, 2021

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (DE 101, 107, 138). The motions were briefed fully and in this posture the issues raised are ripe for ruling.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff, a former state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing complaint on May 31, 2018, asserting claims for violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Following a period of frivolity review and resolution of motion to dismiss, plaintiff was allowed to file the operative amended complaint on July 31, 2018, asserting claims under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, plaintiff alleges defendants seized his legal and non-legal mail and provided it to the

1

prosecutor and investigators in his criminal case (“prosecution team”), that defendants prohibited him from communicating with his wife while he was a pretrial detainee, and that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances. Defendants, sued in both their individual and official capacities, are Director Butler (“Butler”), former director of detention services for the Wake County Sheriff's Office (“WCSO”); Yolanda Banks (“Banks”), administrative supervisor for the Wake County Detention Center (“WCDC”) mail room; E. George (“George”), administrative assistant for the WCDC mail room; V. Frederick (“Frederick”), administrative assistant for the WCDC mail room; Kenneth Blackwell (“Blackwell”), former investigator with the WCSO; and Mark Szajnberg (“Szajnberg”), sergeant with the WCSO. As relief, plaintiff seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, and various forms of injunctive relief.

Following a period of discovery, and in accordance with the court's case management order, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment as to his retaliation claim, relying upon a memorandum of law, statement of undisputed facts, his personal declaration, and appendix of exhibits comprising the following:

1) plaintiff's WCDC grievance records and inmate requests

2) affidavit of WCDC correctional officer Lieutenant McDougald

3) correspondence between plaintiff and Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison (“Sheriff Harrison”); and

4) correspondence between Virginia Tharrington (“Tharrington”), legal counsel to the WCSO, and plaintiff

Defendants responded to plaintiff's motion by filing a cross motion for partial summary judgment as to the retaliation claim, relying upon a memorandum of law, statement of material

2

facts, and appendix of exhibits thereto, comprising the following:

1) affidavit of defendant Butler with exhibits 1-13 comprising WCSO detention policies, plaintiff's grievances and inmate requests, inmate logs, judicial records from plaintiff's criminal proceedings, Prison Rape Elimination Act investigative materials, and other miscellaneous records regarding plaintiff's pretrial detention;

2) plaintiff's grievance records;

3) affidavit of Jared S. Ollison, WCSO director of detention services with exhibits 1-5 comprising WCSO detention resident handbook, and the same exhibits filed in support of defendant Butler's affidavit;

4) excerpts of transcripts of plaintiff's deposition;

5) warrant for plaintiff's arrest;

6) excerpts of plaintiff's inmate log; and

7) plaintiff's transcript of plea.

Plaintiff responded in opposition to defendants' cross motion for partial summary judgment relying upon a memorandum of law, opposing statement of material facts, and appendix of exhibits thereto comprising the following:

1) affidavit of plaintiff;

2) defendant Butler's responses to plaintiff's first request for admissions;

3) excerpts of the WCSO detention resident handbook;

4) plaintiff's medical and mental health records; and

5) plaintiff's grievance records.

Defendants replied in support of their motion for partial summary judgment, relying upon excerpts

3

of defendants' responses to plaintiff's discovery requests.

Defendants next moved for summary judgment as to plaintiff's remaining claims on June 3, 2021. In support of their second motion, defendants rely upon memorandum of law, statement of material facts, and appendix of exhibits thereto, comprising the following:

1) affidavit of defendant Szajnberg with exhibits 1-5 comprising plaintiff's warrant for arrest, emails between Szajnberg and WCDC staff, and judicial records from plaintiff's criminal case;

2) affidavit of Wake County assistant district attorney Melanie A. Shekita (“Shekita”);

3) affidavit of defendant Butler and exhibits 1 through 6 comprising WCSO detention center operations manual, WCSO detention resident handbook, excerpts of plaintiff's inmate logs, defendant Szajnberg's request for plaintiff's mail, and Wake County Superior court order directing no contact between plaintiff and his wife;

4) affidavit of defendant Blackwell with exhibit comprising email communications regarding defendant Szajnberg's request for plaintiff's mail;

5) affidavit of defendant Banks;

6) affidavit of defendant George;

7) affidavit of defendant Frederick;

8) notice of intent to introduce 404(b) evidence filed in plaintiff's criminal case;

9) subpoena duces tecum to Shekita;

10) subpoena duces tecum to Curtis High (“High”), plaintiff's former criminal defense attorney;

11) Wake County Jail legal mail log;

4

12) legal mail incident report; and

13) excerpts of transcripts of plaintiff's deposition.

Plaintiff responded in opposition to defendants' second motion for summary judgment on June 29, 2021, relying upon a memorandum of law, opposing statement of material facts, and appendix of exhibits thereto comprising the following:

1) affidavit of third-party witness Michael Quadrel (“Quadrel”);

2) affidavit of third-party witness Freya Turppa (“Turppa”);

3) affidavit of MaryAnn Coleman (“Coleman”), the grandmother of plaintiff's wife;

4) copies of envelopes of plaintiff's outgoing mail;

5) correspondence between plaintiff and the OI Foundation;

6) correspondence between plaintiff and Shekita regarding her responses to plaintiff's subpoena;

7) correspondence between plaintiff and Coleman, Cheryl Rader (“Rader”), a case worker with North Carolina Child Protective Services, and Roy Webb (“Webb”), plaintiff's grandfather;

8) correspondence between plaintiff and the North Carolina Supreme Court;

9) plaintiff's grievance records;

10) communications between plaintiff and WCDC staff regarding plaintiff's request to communicate with his wife;

11) emails between Gale Bailey-Lee (“Bailey-Lee”), a WCSO detention captain, and Tharrington regarding plaintiff's requests to communicate with his wife;

12) correspondence between plaintiff and the clerk of this court;

5

13) credit alert inquiry as to plaintiff;

14) email between plaintiff and High;

15) defendants' responses to plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admission;

16) affidavit of plaintiff; and

17) plaintiff's WCDC inmate requests.

Defendants replied in support of their second motion for summary judgment, relying upon an affidavit of Bailey-Lee and exhibits thereto comprising emails between plaintiff and various third-parties, excerpts of transcript of plaintiff's deposition, and Wake County Superior Court orders assigning counsel to plaintiff in his underlying criminal case. With leave of court, plaintiff filed a sur-reply in opposition^[2] to defendants' second motion for summary judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Except as otherwise noted below, the court recounts the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

A. Plaintiff's Arrest and Prosecution

In July 2016, defendant Szajnberg, then a senior investigator with the WCSO criminal investigation division, responded to a request for assistance from the Wake Medical Center regarding plaintiff's infant daughter. (Szajnberg Aff. (DE 141-1) ¶¶ 4, 6; Defs' Stmt. (DE 140) ¶¶ 2-3). Medical providers had identified several suspicious fractures on the child's body while taking x-rays for an unrelated medical issue. (Defs' Stmt. (DE 140) ¶ 2; Szajnberg Aff. (DE 141-1) ¶ 6). Defendant Szajnberg and child protective services suspected child abuse was the cause

6

of the fractures and commenced an investigation. (Szajnberg Aff. (DE 141-1) ¶¶ 7-12). On July 22, 2016, defendant Szajnberg obtained a warrant for plaintiff's arrest based on finding of probable cause that plaintiff committed intentional child abuse. (Id. ¶ 13 & Ex. A). When WCSO officers attempted to serve the warrant, however, they discovered plaintiff had fled the state with his then wife, Diandra Webb. (Id. ¶¶ 13-16).

Shekita, the prosecutor overseeing the investigation, approved full extradition warrants for both plaintiff and his wife. (Shekita Aff. (DE 141-2) ¶¶ 11-12). On October 12, 2016, authorities with the United States Marshals Service apprehended plaintiff and his wife in Edmonds, Washington. (Szajnberg Aff (DE 141-1) ¶ 20). During a search of their residence, the officers recovered a journal in which plaintiff and his wife discussed recordings and other research they intended to present at a forthcoming trial for the child abuse charges. (Id. ¶¶ 22).

On October 25, 2016, plaintiff and his wife were indicted for felony child abuse inflicting serious injury. (Defs' Stmt. (DE 140) ¶ 17). Following extradition to North Carolina in late October...