Clark v. Britt

JOSEPH EARL CLARK, II, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN LINDSEY BRITT, et al., Defendants.

1:18CV493

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

February 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Joseph Earl Clark, II, an inmate in the North Carolina Department of Correction. The Complaint [Doc. #2] relates to events which occurred at Scotland Correctional Institution beginning on June 14, 2016, and which led to both prison disciplinary charges and state court criminal charges against Plaintiff He was found guilty of the disciplinary charges, but the criminal charges were later dismissed by the State. Plaintiff subsequently filed an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus in this Court challenging the prison disciplinary convictions in case 1:17CV47. After the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondent in that case, Plaintiff filed the current action naming fourteen current and former prison officials as Defendants. A number of motions filed by the Parties, including cross motions for summary judgment, are currently pending before the Court and will be discussed in turn below.

I. Allegations and Facts

A. Allegations in the Complaint

The Complaint alleges generally that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to due process, his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and his right to equal protection of the laws. He also alleges state law claims for malicious prosecution, obstruction of justice, and violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-268(a1), (a5), and (a7). The Complaint states that on June 21, 2016, Defendants Monica Almodovar and Shawn Britt falsified events that led to Plaintiff's disciplinary convictions and criminal prosecution because he had filed multiple grievances and a prior lawsuit. (Complaint at 7-8.)¹ Defendant Almodovar, a case manager at Scotland Correctional, allegedly gave a statement to the Scotland County Sheriff's Office that Plaintiff "came into her cubicle on camera and began ejaculating semen all over her office, her hand, her desk, and on [himself] in large amounts." (Complaint at 8.) Defendant Britt allegedly gave a statement that he saw semen on Plaintiff's clothes. (Complaint at 9.) The Complaint states that the Scotland County Sheriff's Department attempted to gain access to evidence, including video footage, photographs taken of Plaintiff by Defendant Zerranti McClean, and the clothes Plaintiff wore the day of the incident, but that Defendants did not turn over that evidence despite Plaintiff filing grievances asking them to do so. (Id.) It accuses Defendants Reginald Mewborn and Elizabeth Wallace of "rubber stamping" the grievances and dismissing them. (Id.) Prison officials eventually transferred Plaintiff to a prison three hours away, which he alleges separated him from his attorney in thecriminal case. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Almodovar told the Sheriff's Office that Defendant Katy Poole had watched video of the incident, but that Defendant Poole also would not turn over the video. (Complaint at 10.) Plaintiff's attorney in the criminal case filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges and the District Attorney filed a dismissal after learning that all of the evidence had been destroyed, allegedly in violation of North Carolina statutory law and prison regulations.

As noted above, the prison also conducted disciplinary proceedings. The Complaint claims that Defendants Justin Chavis and Britt conducted the disciplinary investigation and that Defendant Pamela Locklear was the hearing officer. (Id. at 8.) Defendants Jamie Hammonds and Toya Collins conducted an administrative investigation, which Defendants Ronald Covington and Dean Lochlear reviewed. (Id. at 9.) Defendant Queen Gerald allegedly participated in the disciplinary process and reviewed the video in question. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff filed the previously mentioned habeas action challenging his conviction on the disciplinary charges, but lost that case, which he contends was because he did not have the evidence to prove bias on the part of the hearing officer. (Id.)

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff claims that he suffered distress due to facing a possible four additional years in prison and a loss of family ties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages and the expungement of the dismissed criminal charges from his record. (Id. at 12.)

B. Allegations in the Amended Complaint and Supplement

Plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. #3] and Supplement [Doc. #4] which repeat many of the allegations set out above and make additional allegations and claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that on June 14, 2016, Defendant Almodovar reported to Defendant Britt that Plaintiff entered her cubicle and exposed himself while on camera. (Amended Complaint at 8.) Defendant Selena Bartee responded to the call and ordered other officers to escort Plaintiff to solitary confinement. (Id.) Defendant Britt then came to solitary confinement and ordered Plaintiff into his office, where he threatened to "beat [Plaintiff's] a**" because he was tired of Plaintiff being written up for exposing himself to female staff.² (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he was "'not trying to hear that'" because he was on medium custody and "'the most [Britt could] do is write [Plaintiff] up for a B6 and give [him] 30 days in the 'hole' [and Plaintiff would] still be medium custody when [he] get[s] out of the hole.'" (Id. at 9.) This allegedly angered Defendant Britt, who then said he would make sure that Plaintiff got an assault charge this time and was demoted to close custody, that he knew Plaintiff beat an assault charge at another prison, and that Plaintiff would regret this day. (Id.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant McClean came to solitary about an hour later and took pictures of Plaintiff and his pants on Britt's orders. (Id.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was then stripped naked and left in solitary confinement for three days with the temperature turned down and was denied a typical medical screening for inmatesplaced in solitary confinement. (Id.) The Amended Complaint also states that officials also failed to tell Plaintiff's mother not to come for a scheduled visit, causing her to come to the prison only to be turned away by Defendant Covington. (Id.)

The Amended Complaint then reports that on June 21, 2016, Defendants Covington and Dean Lochlear were present when Plaintiff was escorted in shackles and restraints to be taken to the Scotland County magistrate's office. (Id.) As Plaintiff left, Defendant Covington allegedly joked that Plaintiff had "'messed' with the wrong staff." (Id. at 10.) The Scotland County Sheriff's Department booked Plaintiff and charged him with malicious conduct by a prisoner based on a statement by Defendant Almodovar that Plaintiff ejaculated on her and her cubicle. (Id.) The Amended Complaint states that she knew this to be a false statement at the time she made it. (Id.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Collins gathered evidence in the administrative investigation to give to the Sheriff, but left out photographs, medical documents, and video footage. (Id.) Defendants Covington and Lochlear allegedly approved that report knowing that the evidence was missing. (Id.)

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff requested video footage at a prison disciplinary hearing. Defendant Locklear was the presiding hearing officer and stated that she looked at the video footage. When Plaintiff informed her he needed the video for his criminal case, she allegedly "tried to downplay the exculpatory value of [the] video." (Id.) She also stated that Defendant Britt had control of the video. (Id.) On August 8, 2016, Defendant Almodovar gave another statement to the Sheriff's Department in which she stated that Defendant Poole had seen the video, that she left her cubicle to seek medical attention for her hand, and that another inmate came in and cleaned her desk and chair. (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff was subsequently indictednot only for malicious conduct by a prisoner, but also assault on a female and indecent exposure. (Id. at 11.) Both the prosecuting authorities and Plaintiff's criminal defense attorney attempted without success to obtain the missing video and photographs. (Id.) Defendant Poole then made a statement that the video had been destroyed. (Id. at 11-12.) The Amended Complaint claims that this occurred after Defendants Wallace and Mewborn were "deliberately indifferent" and dismissed Plaintiff's grievances seeking to secure the video evidence. (Id. at 12.) A few weeks later, the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. (Id.)

Plaintiff claims in the Amended Complaint that he was "devastated and heart broken" when the charges were dismissed because he could not go to trial and prove his innocence. (Id.) This left prison staff and other prisoners talking about the incident and spreading rumors. (Id.) He claims that the dismissal was not favorable to him because he was found guilty in the prison disciplinary hearing, was still punished even though he was innocent, and lost his only opportunity to prove his innocence. (Id. at 13.) He also claims that prison officials failed to conduct an investigation under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), leaving Plaintiff with no further remedy or method to prove his innocence. (Id.) He claims that this causes "emotional distress, humiliation, and hardship on [him] and [his] family." (Id.)

The Amended Complaint also adds a few new or more specific allegations as to particular Defendants. Of note, it alleges that Defendant Britt refused to turn the video evidence over to the Sheriff's Department and wrote a false statement that he saw semen on Plaintiff's pants. (Id. at 14.) It additionally contends that Defendant Britt "planned the whole false incident, coercing [Defendant]...