Whitfield v. Thompson

Decision Date24 February 2016
Docket NumberCase Number: 13–22379–MARTINEZ–WHITE
Citation165 F.Supp.3d 1227
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
Parties Benjamin Whitfield, Plaintiff, v. David Thompson, et al., Defendants.

Benjamin Whitfield, Perry, FL, pro se.

Bernard Pastor, Ana Angelica Viciana, James J. Allen, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Judge White filed a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 88], recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 71] be granted and that final judgment be entered in favor of all Defendants. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record and notes that no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. After careful consideration, the Court affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby:

ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge White's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 88] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 71] is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED, and any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A final judgment shall be entered by separate order.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24 day of February, 2016.

REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

P.A. White

, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction and Background

Benjamin Whitfield, a convicted state felon currently confined in Taylor Correctional Institution, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

while confined at Hamilton Correctional Institution in Jasper, Florida. See Complaint (DE# 1–2). Plaintiff names as defendants in his complaint: Officer David Thompson, Officer Aida Wilson, and Corporal Laroxsha Williams, corrections officers employed by Miami–Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department at the Metro West Detention Center. Id. He also names as defendants Mario Mothersil and Elizabeth Fernandez, counselors employed by Miami–Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department at the Metro West Detention Center. Id.

As to Defendant Thompson, Whitfield claims that this defendant denied him access to the courts in violation of his First Amendment rights. See Complaint at ¶¶ 10–13. (DE# 1–2). He alleges that on January 16, 2013, Defendant Thompson and another officer came to Okeechobee Correctional Institution, where he was then confined, to transport him to Miami–Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department for his then-upcoming trial scheduled for January 28, 2013. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was not permitted to take with him various legal documents pertaining to his criminal and civil cases even after he informed Defendant Thompson that he was a pro se litigant in those cases. Id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's actions in denying him the needed legal materials resulted in the dismissal of one of the civil cases he was then pursuing in this Court, because he had been unable to file a change of address and file a timely Amended Complaint. Id. He further alleges that his inability to refer to his legal documents from January 16 to March 20, 2013, in his then-active cases, caused him to file unnecessary motions for extension of time and premature responses in the United States Tax Court and a Florida appellate court. Id. at ¶¶ 6–7, 40–42.

As to the Defendant Wilson, Plaintiff claims that this defendant violated his First Amendment rights in that she retaliated against him for pursuing grievances against her and that defendant Williams violated his due process rights in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. Id. at ¶¶ 16–28, 48–50. Plaintiff alleges that while confined at the Metro West Detention Facility on February 23, 2013, he wrote two grievances against defendant Wilson, and two days later he wrote complaints to internal affairs about Defendant Wilson. Id. at ¶¶ 16–17. Plaintiff contends that, a few days later, on February 28, 2013, Defendant Wilson retaliated against him by filing a frivolous Disciplinary Report, charging him with possession of stolen property. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 56. The same date, Defendants Wilson and Williams placed him in a holding cell and then commenced a partial investigation into the charge set out in the disciplinary report. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 48. Plaintiff states that he provided a written statement to the officers and he named certain inmates and staff as witnesses regarding the subject incident. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Williams denied him the right to present witnesses in his defense in that she refused to interview the witnesses provided and told him that the witnesses would need to contact her. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 48, 50. Plaintiff also alleges that he was never provided with full notice of the frivolous allegations against him. Id.

Plaintiff goes on to allege that later that same day, February 28, 2013, Defendant Williams requested that he return to her his copy of the disciplinary report, which he did. Id. at ¶ 25. He was then provided with a substitute disciplinary report titled, “Loaning of Property of Another or Anything of Value Increase,” also authored by Defendant Wilson. Id. According to Plaintiff, the substituted disciplinary report had been prepared after the investigation had started into the charge made in the initial disciplinary report and after he had provided a written statement to that charge. Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff states yet a third disciplinary report was prepared on February 28, 2013, this time charging him with lying or providing false statements to corrections staff. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff claims that this second disciplinary report prepared by Defendant Wilson was also false and made in retaliation for his having filed grievances against the defendant. Id. at ¶ 56. Plaintiff states that he refused to sign the two new disciplinary reports. Id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiff maintains that the disciplinary reports were false and written to discourage his from exercising his right to pursue his grievances against Defendant Wilson. Id. at ¶¶ 58, 59.

As to defendants Mothersil and Fernandez, Plaintiff alleges that they violated his due process rights in connection with the disciplinary hearings conducted on the substituted and second disciplinary reports. Id. at ¶¶ 31–38. Plaintiff claims that he requested these defendants to postpone the disciplinary hearings so that he could obtain statements from the witnesses listed in his statement to the initial disciplinary report, and they refused to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 30, 64. Plaintiff alleges that these two defendants informed him that he had no right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 32. Plaintiff was found guilty as charged in a hearing held on March 5, 2013. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were not fair and impartial fact finders and he was sentenced to twenty days' disciplinary confinement in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 64. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Mothersil told him that he had no right to take an appeal from the disciplinary team's finding. Id. at ¶ 24. He also maintains that he was not provided with a copy of the written findings until fourteen days after the hearing and only after he had submitted a grievance, requesting a copy. Id. at 35. The copy of the findings revealed that he had additionally lost his visitation privileges for a thirty-day period and the team recommended that he be transferred from the Metro West detention facility as a sanction for lying. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 37.

Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted available grievance procedures. Id. at ¶ 68. He seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $60,000.00 from each defendant, punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 from each defendant, and any additional relief that this Court deems just, proper and equitable. Id. at ¶¶ 71–75.

The complaint was initially filed on May 29, 2013, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida at Miami–Dade County, assigned Case No. 13–19043CA25. (DE# 1–2). On July 5, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)

and (b) and 1446, Defendants Williams and Thompson filed a Notice of Removal and removed the action to this Court. See Miami–Dade Corrections & Rehab. Department's Notice of Removal. (DE# 1). The defendants paid the $400.00 removal fee. Id. On July 29, 2013, all named defendants filed a joint amended motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. See Defendants Williams, Wilson, Mothersil, and Fernandez's Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (DE# 8). The defendants argued that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed, because (1) Plaintiff is subject to the “three strikes rule” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) ; (2) the Plaintiff failed to allege that he had suffered a physical injury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); (3) the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted as to any defendant; and (3) they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

The Honorable Chris McAliley, United States Magistrate Judge, entered a Report, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Thompson due to Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendant Thompson. See Report and Recommendation entered on November 22, 2013, at 2–4, 20. (DE# 23). All other arguments were rejected, and it was recommended that the amended motion to dismiss be denied. Id. at 5–20. The Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge, adopted the Report and recommendations. See Order Adopting Magistrate Judge McAliley's Report and Recommendation entered on March 7, 2014. (DE# 28). After service of process had been accomplished upon all defendants, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • United States v. Cropper, Case No.: 2:17-CR-0030-VEH-TMP-1
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 21 Febrero 2019
    ...‘that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts’ under the Due Process Clause[ ] ...." Whitfield v. Thompson , 165 F.Supp.3d 1227, 1238 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (quoting Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) ). Defendant need not be released pe......
  • Roberts v. Sormrude, Case No. 3:16cv68-MCR-CJK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • 1 Marzo 2017
    ...although plaintiff cannot seek compensatory or punitive damages, he may seek nominal damages of $1.00. See Whitfield v. Thompson, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1238 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (noting "nominal damages do not generally exceed one dollar").Collateral Estoppel Defendant next claims "[p]laint......
  • Staten v. Barlow, Case No. 3:17cv697/LAC/EMT
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Florida
    • 13 Marzo 2019
    ...R. Civ. P. 54(c)). Staten is advised that nominal damages are limited to a trivial sum, typically $1.00. See Whitfield v. Thompson, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1238 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (noting "nominal damages do not generally exceed one dollar").III. DISMISSAL OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS Althou......
  • McClanahan v. Wilson, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1720-JWD-RLB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Middle District of Louisiana
    • 31 Julio 2019
    ...430 F.3d 912, 916 (8th Cir. 2005) ("one dollar is recognized as an appropriate value for nominal damages"); Whitfield v. Thompson, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1227, 1238 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (noting "nominal damages do not generally exceed one dollar"); Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topics.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 69, June 2017
    • 1 Junio 2017
    ...705 Correctional Facility, Puerto Rico) U.S. District Court PLRA--Prison Litigation Reform Act LEGAL MATERIALS Whitfield v. Thompson, 165 F.Supp.3d 1227 (S.D. Fla. 2016). A state inmate brought a [section] 1983 action in state court against corrections officers and counselors employed by a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT