Brown v. The Macon Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

1

JONATHON SCOTT BROWN, LEVI MULLINS, KEVIN HARRISON, LUCAS TRACY, TIMOTHY MANN, ROY GARDNER, WILLIAM ROWE, SHAWN FEINSTEIN, and JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs, v. THE MACON COUNTY SHERIFF'S, DEPARTMENT d/b/a MACON COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF MARK GAMMONS, SCOTTY SUTTON, JEFF WILSON, MACON COUNTY, KIM SUMMERS, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

BRANDON D. TAYLOR, CHESTER L. LOUDY, SCOTTIE GRIFFIN, CHAD REYNOLDS, JEFFREY T. FISHER, RANDALL D. GUFFEY, TYLER R. BERG and CALVIN O. TANKESLY, Plaintiffs, v. THE MACON COUNTY SHERIFF'S, DEPARTMENT d/b/a MACON COUNTY JAIL, SHERIFF MARK GAMMONS, SCOTTY SUTTON, JEFF WILSON, MACON COUNTY, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

Nos. 2:21-cv-00009, 2:21-cv-00040

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division

October 31, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this consolidated civil right actions brought by former inmates of the Macon County Jail in Lafayette, Tennessee, Defendant Kim Summers has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No 117) and accompanying memorandum (Doc. No. 118), to which Plaintiffs have responded in opposition (Doc. No. 128) and Summers has replied (Doc. No. 129). The remaining Defendants have filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No 136) with accompanying memorandum (Doc. No. 137) to which Plaintiffs have also responded in opposition (Doc. No. 146) and Defendants have replied (Doc. No. 150). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Case Management Order and Reconsider Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 167), to which Defendants have responded in opposition (Doc. No. 168).

For the reasons that follow, Summers' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted while the other Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.^[1] The Motion to Amend and Reconsider will be denied.

I. Factual Background, Procedural Posture, And Standard Of Review

In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, and in accordance with this Court's Local Rule 56.01, Defendants' filed a statement of undisputed facts (Doc. No. 138), to which Plaintiff's responded in opposition (Doc. No. 147) (“SOF”).^[2] So far as material, those facts show the following.^[3]

Sheriff Mark Gammons began noticing in 2012 that the jail was become fuller and nearing its capacity. To alleviate the problem, he and the County requested that the State of Tennessee accept inmates into the state prison system, and/or place Macon County inmates in other county jails. Gammons also requested a larger budget so that he could purchase more mats, clothing, and food for inmates, and increase the number of staff on each shift. Discussions were also had with the local judges and district attorney about the overcrowding issue. (SOF ¶¶ 1-4).

The efforts to reduce the number of inmates at the jail proved to be insufficient, and Macon Count was found by the State to be overcrowded and understaffed. This led to a Plan of Action instituted by the State. (Id. 5-6). As a part of the Plan, the County looked into expanding the present jail or constructing a larger facility. (Id. ¶ 6-7). In the interim, the County looked at stopgap measures to reduce overcrowding by: (1) refraining from executing probation violation warrants; (2) asking probation officers to stop violating a probationer unless it was absolutely necessary; and (3) looking into alternative rehabilitation programs for inmates. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 12).

In April 2019, the County began reviewing sketches for expanding the jail. However, also during 2019, the jail inmate populations continued to increase monthly, prompting officials to hold “one or two inmates” in the multi-purpose room (“MPR”) or isolation room on a temporary basis. (Id. ¶ 17). Towards the end of 2019, some inmates asked to stay in the MPR room, a practice approved by Gammons, so long as the inmates were given restroom breaks and provided shower time. (Id. ¶ 19).

Against this backdrop, Plaintiff Jonathan S. Brown, proceeding pro se, filed suit on February 26, 2021 against the Macon County Sheriff's Department alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Docket No. 2:21-cv-00009, Doc. No. 1). After initial screening by the Court, the Sheriff's Department was dismissed, but Plaintiff was allowed to amend his Complaint. (Id. Doc. No. 5). On May 7, 2021, an Amended Complaint was filed by counsel that added Levi Mullins, Kevin Harrison, Lucas Tracy, Timothy Mann, Roy Gardner, William Rowe and Shawn Feinstein as Plaintiffs. The Macon County Sheriff's Department d/b/a the Macon County Jail, Sheriff Mark Gammons, Scotty Sutton (Jail Administrator), Jeff Wilson (Assistant Jail Administrator), Kim Summers (Jailer), John Doe, and Macon County were named as Defendants. (Id. Doc. No. 12).^[4]

The Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count I alleges “Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs Against the Correctional Officers of the Jail”; Count II alleges “Deliberate Indifference to Required Aspects of Inmate Dwelling”; and Count III alleges “Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement.” Count IV is as state law negligence claim brought against all Defendants.

That Amended Complaint (in what the Court will hereafter refer to as the “Brown case”) is large on hyperbole but short on specific factual allegations, with broad brushes used to paint each individual's specific claims and the Defendants to whom the allegation is directed. One thing is clear, however. Plaintiffs in the Brown case complain about actions (or inactions) that occurred “specifically in and around January 2020 until late February 2020.” Indeed, that exact phrase is used when identifying each of the eight named Plaintiffs. (Am. Cmp. ¶¶ 1-8). The Amended Complaint also contains no other date in relation to Plaintiffs and their complaints about their incarceration in the Macon County Jail.

The Brown case was followed by what the Court will refer to as the “Taylor case” filed on October 6, 2021. (Doc. No. 2:21-cv-00040). There, Brandon D. Taylor, Chester L. Loudy, Scottie W. Griffin, Chad Reynolds, Jeffrey T. Fisher, Randall D. Guffey, Tyler R. Berg and Calvin O. Tankesly sued the same Defendants as in Brown. The Complaints in the two cases are substantially the same, including the hyperbole and lack of a link between a specific Defendant and the activities complained of. Likewise, the Taylor case advances the same four causes of action as in the Brown case. Conspicuously absent, however, is the repeated reference to “in and around January 2020 until February 2020.” Instead, the dates in the Taylor case are linked to a specific Plaintiff and his period of incarceration. Thus, for example, the Complaint alleges that “Plaintiff Taylor was incarcerated at all times complained of herein, but more specifically in and around March 22, 2021 through May 6, 2021”; “Plaintiff Loudy was incarcerated at all times complained of herein, but more specifically in and around July 9, 2021 through July 13, 2021”; “Plaintiff Griffin was incarcerated at all times complained of herein, but more specifically in and around September 1, 2019 until late February 2020,” and so on. (Doc. No. 2:21-cv-00040 at ¶¶ 2-4). Given these various dates, the phrase “all times complained of herein” is a bit nebulous.

Because of the substantial overlap in the cases, the Court consolidated Brown and Taylor for discovery, (Doc. No. 88) and trial (Doc. No. 116), with Brown designated as the lead case. Accordingly, references to “Plaintiffs” from here on will be a reference to the Plaintiffs in both cases, unless otherwise noted. Similarly, any reference to “Complaint” will be to the Amended Complaint filed in Brown. Finally, as a housekeeping matter, the Court notes that in response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs concede that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Count I and IV. Accordingly, the focus now is on Plaintiffs' claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the housing conditions at the Macon County Jail as alleged in Count II, and that Plaintiffs were subject to unconstitutional conditions of confinement as alleged in Count III.

The factual allegations underlying Plaintiffs' constitutional claims under Counts II and III are set forth in the Complaint as follows:

51. Plaintiffs were forced to urinate in a milk jug that was provided to Plaintiffs by Defendant Doe and Defendant Summers;

52. Plaintiffs, having no access to the proper human waste receptacle and with no access to any sort of plumbing in which to rid their waste in (defecate), did so in trash bags which were the only container they could utilize. The mental trauma associated with some of the post-traumatic stress disorder like symptoms was a direct and proximate cause from the humiliation suffered while being forced to use the bathroom in such conditions;

53. Plaintiffs had no hand washing abilities and had to ask to wash their hands sometimes being denied access for upwards of two to three (2-3) days at a time and resorted to beating on the door or covering the camera that monitored the Plaintiffs to get the attention of the guards that were watching in the tower;

54. Plaintiffs had no bed that lifted them off the floor;

55. Plaintiffs were given a pillow and a wool blanket along with a thin mat in which to sleep on the floor with;

56. Plaintiffs were housed with ten to fifteen (10-15) other men at any given time in the MPR room;

57. There was a room called the “ISO” room or isolation room that inmates were housed in similar to the “MPR” room;

58. The ISO room had no running water;

59. The ISO room had no human waste toilet;

60. Plaintiffs would defecate in a drain located in the middle of the room;

61. Plaintiffs

...