Opinion
C/A 6:22-cv-01705-HMH-KFM
10-14-2022
Jovan Brown, Plaintiff, v. Ron Lawrenz, Eric Ramos, Michelle Dube, Thresea Cannady-Smith, Mr. Zubert, Janene Bartlett, Patricia Swaby, Lisa Young, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a civilly committed individual proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff's amended complaint was entered on the docket on July 8, 2022 (doc. 9). By Order filed August 18, 2022, the undersigned informed the plaintiff that his conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022 against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young, as pleaded, was sufficient to survive screening, and indicated that service would be recommended as to defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young on that claim (doc. 28 at 5, 9-10). The order also informed the plaintiff that the remainder of his claims were subject to dismissal as drafted and provided the plaintiff with fourteen days to file a second amended complaint with respect to his claims (id. at 5-10). The second amended complaint was entered on the docket on September 8, 2022 (doc. 30). Upon review, the undersigned is of the opinion that the plaintiff's second amended complaint has not corrected the deficiencies noted in the court's August 18, 2022, order; thus, the plaintiff's claims are subject to summary dismissal as outlined below, except for the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022 against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young.
ALLEGATIONS
The plaintiff alleges violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights from February through June of 2022 (doc. 30 at 5-33). The plaintiff contends that on February 12, 2022, he was transferred to solitary confinement (“SMS”) after he did not pass a drug test (id. at 11-12). The plaintiff alleges that on February 4, 2022, because he had been transferred to SMS, a residential treatment assistant was sent to pack up his property from his room, but when the plaintiff received his property several things were missing and others were broken (id. at 11-12). On April 13, 2022, the plaintiff and two other residents were taken to medical for drug tests (id. at 13). On April 14, 2022, the plaintiff's entire dorm was given a random drug test and Ms. Bartlett accused the plaintiff of using a water substitute for urine in his drug test (id.). The plaintiff was taken back to SMS based upon failing the drug test, while the results were sent to an outside lab for confirmation (id. at 14-15). During this same time, the plaintiff alleges that six other dorm members were placed on SMS for failing a drug test (id. at 14). The plaintiff alleges that, the next day, Dir. Lawrenz and Chief Ramos spoke to the residents on SMS and all of the other dorm members were told that they were awaiting confirmation of the test results from an outside lab (id.). Two days later, Chief Ramos said that all of the residents would be sent back to their dorms once the outside lab results were received - regardless of the results (id.). On April 19, 2022, the results indicated that all of the residents had failed the drug test (id. at 15). However, although the six other dorm members were returned to their dorms, the plaintiff was not because he was charged with using an unauthorized substance (id.). The plaintiff alleges that being charged while other residents were not violated his equal protection rights (id.).
On May 5, 2022, the plaintiff appeared before a Behavior Management Committee (“BMC”) where he alleges he was coerced to plead guilty to a disciplinary charge under duress (id. at 17). He contends that during the hearing Maj. Young was present even though she submitted the charge against the plaintiff and she only left halfway through (id. at 27). On May 12, 2022, the plaintiff was served with a document indicating that any investigation into his behavior had ended, but the notice came 29 days after being placed on SMS (id. at 26-27). On May 19, 2022, the plaintiff attended a BMC and was found guilty of establishing a relationship with a staff member, but his disposition form was left incomplete so he could be held indefinitely on SMS status (id. at 28, 29-30).
On June 2, 2022, the plaintiff requested a copy of his urine test results (id. at 15). The plaintiff alleges that the results prove that Ms. Bartlett mishandled his sample causing the improper results, that the plaintiff never consented to the procurement of his urine, and that there is no proper chain of custody for the urine sample, which violates the plaintiff's due process rights (id. at 15-17). The plaintiff further contends that being placed on SMS for 64 days is a violation of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the T reatment of Incarcerated Individuals because he suffers from mental illness (id. at 22-23). He further contends that he has been treated differently than other residents because of his race (id. at 24-26). The plaintiff contends that his equal protection rights were violated on May 26, 2022, when another resident (of unknown race) who was charged with having an improper relationship with staff was not placed on SMS immediately and only spent two hours on SMS (id. at 25-26). The plaintiff's rights were also allegedly violated on June 2, 2022, when another resident, who was white, was only kept on SMS for eight days after a charge for assaulting an officer (id. at 24-25).
During this same time, while on SMS, the plaintiff alleges he was subjected to living in an uninhabitable cell (id. at 18-20). He contends that the cell had a backflow problem which resulted in the toilet leaking water on the floor with feces (id.). The plaintiff further alleges that the cell had black soot and bodily fluids on the floor and the door (id.). He contends that he informed Maj. Young about the conditions of the cell, and she indicated that the cell would be cleaned every week on Friday (id. at 19-20). The plaintiff contends that the cleaning provided was inadequate (id.). The plaintiff also contends that he informed Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and a maintenance worker (who has not been named as a defendant in this matter) about the sewage backflow, but he was not moved (id. at 18). The plaintiff was finally moved from the cell on May 26, 2022 (id. at 19). The plaintiff further contends that his rights were violated when he was subjected to other mentally ill residents who were noisy and interrupted his sleep while on SMS (id. at 23-24).
While on SMS, the plaintiff further contends that he requested to see the psychologist, but the psychologist indicated that he had to take certain steps to see her, which he contends violated his rights to medical treatment (id. at 32). He also contends that his rights were violated when he was denied access to skype or a telephone to call his family for 22 days because he would not give Dir. Lawrenz and Chief Ramos information when they interrogated him (id. at 21-22). He also alleges that the defendants would not provide him with a copy of the facility's policies while he was on SMS (id. at 28-29).
The plaintiff contends that he lost weight due to depression and anxiety caused by his time on SMS (id. at 24, 31-32). He further alleges injuries of sleep deprivation, headaches, psychological stress, a lessened immune system, and worsening psychological conditions (id.). For relief, the plaintiff seeks money damages as well as a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's rights (id. at 33).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
This complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3 (1979)). A civil action under § 1983 “creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 361 (2012). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
DISCUSSION
As noted above, the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022, against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young, is sufficient to survive screening, and service will be recommended as to that claim. As addressed below, the plaintiff has failed to correct the pleading deficiencies identified by the court with respect to the remainder of his claims; thus, the undersigned recommends that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed.
As an initial matter, because the plaintiff is a civilly committed individual, his claims are evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and evaluated as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982). In determining whether the rights of a civilly committed individual, such as the plaintiff, have been violated, the courts must balance the individual's liberty interest against the relevant state interests, but deference must be given to decisions of professionals. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321; See Treece v. Winston-Wood, C/A No. 3:10-cv-02354-DCN-JRM, 2012 WL 887476, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2012), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2012 WL 896360 (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2012). Decisions by a professional are presumptively valid and liability may only be imposed when “the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. The deference ensures that federal courts do not unnecessarily interfere with the internal operations of state institutions. Id. at 322. As such, the plaintiff's claims have been evaluated under Youngberg.
Conditions of Confinement Claims
As noted above, the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022, is sufficient to survive service, and service will be authorized for that claim against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young. However, the remainder of the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims fail. As noted above, an involuntarily committed person's conditions of confinement are subject to the standards set forth in Youngberg, which recognized that “determining whether a substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated” requires courts “to balance ‘the liberty of the individual' and ‘the demands of an organized society.'” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320. Because SVP detainees are not committed for purposes of punishment, SVP detainees “are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Id. at 321-22. However, for an SVP resident, such as the plaintiff, to “state a claim that conditions of confinement violate constitutional requirements, a plaintiff must show both (1) a serious deprivation of a basic human need; and (2) deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials.” Haggwood v. Magill, C/A No. 5:15-cv-3271,2016 WL 4149986, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (partially quoting Stricklerv. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993)).
The remainder of the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims (relating to loud inmates on SMS and limited telephone access) fail because courts must balance the individual's liberty interest against the relevant state interests with deference to the decisions of professionals. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320. Here, the plaintiff's disciplinary infractions and subsequent security concerns required that he be moved to SMS. Further, while the plaintiff remained on SMS, security concerns required the limiting of his privileges; thus, his telephone restriction claims do not provide a basis for relief. Likewise, the plaintiff's reliance on documents released by the United Nations is of no effect here as they cannot form the basis for a constitutional violation. As such, other than the sewage backflow claim, outlined above, the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims are subject to dismissal.
Equal Protection Claims
The plaintiff's equal protection claims also fail. The plaintiff alleges three incidents where he was treated differently than other residents, but has only referenced race in passing as being the reason he was treated differently. Further, the plaintiff has not alleged appropriate comparators for the three alleged equal protection incidents. For example, the plaintiff's second amended complaint does not contain information regarding the race of the residents who were allowed to leave SMS despite failing their drug tests. Additionally, the plaintiff contends that the other residents “failed” the drug test, but alleges that his results instead indicated that he submitted a urine substitute (doc. 30 at 14-15). As such, it appears that the plaintiff's drug test infraction was different than that of the other residents, meaning that even if the plaintiff had alleged that they were all of a different race than him, they cannot be treated as comparators for equal protection purposes. As to the second and third situation, those residents (only one of which the plaintiff identified as being a different race) are not appropriate comparators, because the plaintiff alleges that they were not charged with the same infraction as the plaintiff, meaning that they also cannot be treated as comparators for equal protection purposes. As such, the plaintiff's equal protection claims are subject to summary dismissal.
Personal Property Claim
The plaintiff's claims regarding his personal property fail because an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not violate the Due Process clause if there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy - which there is in South Carolina. See McIntyre v. Portee, 784 F.2d 566, 567 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing S.C. Code § 15-69-10, et seq.). As such, the plaintiff cannot seek damages in this action for the alleged destruction of his personal property and this claim is subject to summary dismissal.
Custody/SMS Claims
The plaintiff's due process claims, based upon his placement on SMS for 64 days and not being provided a pre-detention hearing, are subject to dismissal. First, the plaintiff has not alleged atypical or significant deprivations of his liberty while on SMS. Additionally, a pre-detention hearing is not required each time a prisoner is subject to an increased level of confinement as it may be justified by non-punitive interests. See Vice v. Harvey, 458 F.Supp. 1031, 1036 (D.S.C. 1978) (recognizing certain interests, such as safety or risk of escape, might justify pre-hearing confinement, resulting in a “‘sliding scale' of due process,” whereby courts attempt to “fit the procedural safeguards required to the deprivation imposed”). Moreover, the Supreme Court has approved punitive confinement without a prior hearing in cases where the conditions of such confinement did not impose an atypical or significant deprivation of the inmate's liberty - such as the conditions alleged by the plaintiff. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485-87 (1995).
Indeed, the plaintiff's due process claims also fail based upon Youngberg's professional judgment standard. The plaintiff's allegations regarding chain of custody and his continued stay on SMS involved decisions made by the defendants based upon their professional judgment - as included in documents the plaintiff has submitted with his filings, which indicate that the plaintiff's SMS status was reviewed every seven days, but the defendants determined the plaintiff remained a threat so he was not released from SMS (doc. 9-1). As such, professional judgment was being exercised regarding the plaintiff's custody status; thus, the plaintiff's due process claims also fail based upon Youngberg.
Medical Care Claims
The plaintiff's passing allegation that he was denied medical treatment because the psychologist told him she could not treat him until he completed certain steps is also subject to dismissal. Under Youngberg, because the plaintiff was being provided medical care and informed of the process for seeing the psychologist specifically, meaning professional judgment regarding the plaintiff's need for medical care was being exercised, the plaintiff's claim fails. See Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 835-45 (4th Cir. 2001). As such, the plaintiff's medical indifference claim is subject to summary dismissal.
Abandoned Claims
It appears that the plaintiff has abandoned some of his claims, including conditions of confinement claims relating to limited access to showers, recreation, laundry, and no access to radio or music entertainment (see doc. 30) as his second amended complaint omits mention of those matters. The plaintiff was warned that a second amended complaint replaces the amended complaint and “should be complete in itself” (doc. 28 at 9-10 (citing Young, 238 F.3d at 572)). As such, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the plaintiff's abandoned claims. To the extent the plaintiff did not intend to abandon these claims, for the reasons set forth in the court's prior order, the claims would still be subject to summary dismissal (see doc. 28).
RECOMMENDATION
As noted above, the plaintiff's case will go forward with respect to the plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022, against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young. However, with respect to the plaintiff's remaining claims, despite filing a second amended complaint, the plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies identified in the order dated August 18, 2022 (doc. 28). As such the undersigned recommends that the district court dismiss the plaintiff's claims (other than the conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022, against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young) with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process because the plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the order issued August 18, 2022. See Britt v. DeJoy, --- F.4th -, 2022 WL 3590436, at *5 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (published). The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the following page.
That order warned the plaintiff that if he failed to file a second amended complaint or failed to cure the deficiencies identified therein, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that those claims (other than his conditions of confinement claim regarding sewage backflow and contamination in his cell from April 14, 2022, to May 26, 2022, against defendants Dir. Lawrenz, Chief Ramos, and Maj. Young) be dismissed with prejudice and without leave for further amendment (doc. 28 at 9-10).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committees note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 250 East North Street, Room 2300 Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).