Clark v. Coupe

ANGELO LEE CLARK, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT COUPE, ET AL., Defendants.

C. A. No. 17-66-RGA-MPT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

December 28, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 12, 2018, Angelo Lee Clark ("Clark" or "plaintiff") filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") alleging Robert M. Coupe ("Coupe"), Perry Phelps ("Phelps"), Dana Metzger ("Metzger"), David Pierce ("Pierce"), Major Jeffrey Carrothers ("Carrothers"), Captain Bruce Burton ("Burton"), Captain Marcello Rispoli ("Rispoli"), Captain Ronald Willey ("Willey"), Dr. William Ray Lynch ("Lynch"), Dr. Paola Muñoz ("Muñoz"), Dr. David Yunis ("Yunis"), Rhonda Montgomery ("Montgomery"), Susan Mumford ("Mumford"), and Stephanie D. Johnson ("Johnson") (collectively, "defendants") violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution as applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.¹

Currently before the court are the DOC Defendants' and the Medical Defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).²

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND³

Clark seeks damages and injunctive relief for his cruel and unusual punishment in Delaware prisons, claiming defendants' conduct violates his rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.⁴

Clark is incarcerated at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("JTVCC").⁵ He has been diagnosed with serious mental illness ("SMI"), including manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia, for which he has been treated since at least 2006 while incarcerated in DOC facilities.⁶ During the past few years, in retaliation for Clark's SMI, loud voice, or minor rule infractions, Clark was frequently placed in solitary confinement in JTVCC's segregated housing unit ("SHU"; also referred to herein as "solitary confinement" or "restrictive housing") with no due process and without receiving proper medical and mental health treatment for his serious medical and mental health needs.⁷ While in the SHU, Clark was deprived of any meaningful mental health treatment and given medications the mental health staff knew caused serious allergic reactions and increased hallucinations.⁸ He was treated infrequently by a mental health provider, going weeks and months without any medical healthcare provider interaction and no mental health counseling.⁹

SMI prisoners in the SHU are completely isolated and denied adequate medical and mental health care.¹⁰ The SHU consists of extremely small cells where prisoners are confined for twenty-four hours a day, except for one hour every other day when they are permitted out of their cells.¹¹ The doors of the SHU cells are essentially solid, with asingle four-inch-wide window.¹² Correctional officers deliver meals to prisoners by sliding food through slots in the doors that are opened briefly for that purpose.¹³ Lights are on for all but approximately six hours per day, and few visitors or phone calls are permitted, among other privilege limitations.¹⁴ Research studying solitary confinement shows these types of conditions can cause psychological harm and even brain shrinkage, which can occur within a few days.¹⁵ That research concluded fifteen days is the "outer bounds" of what is tolerable.¹⁶

Clark was housed in solitary confinement at JTVCC for nearly six months in 2012 (and for various other lengthy periods prior to that), for fifteen days in 2015, and for seven months from January to August 2016.¹⁷ As a result of frequent long term confinement in the SHU, Clark experienced increased hallucinations, paranoia, self-mutilation, sleeplessness, and nightmares.¹⁸ Prison officials regarded those manifestations of disease as prison rule infractions and resulted in additional time in solitary confinement and consequent privilege limitations.¹⁹ This created a situation where Clark's mental illness trapped him in a cycle of isolation and punishment which deprived him of adequate mental health treatment and resulted in further deterioration of his mental condition.²⁰

Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to ameliorate the risk of serious harm to Clark and instead used solitary confinement as a substitute for providing proper mental healthcare.²¹ Defendants were aware of Clark's SMI and that his placement in solitary confinement and denial of proper health treatment would cause severe and adverse effects.²² Defendants intentionally caused, or were deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of serous harm to Clark.²³ Defendants' practice of housing Clark in the SHU as a substitute for mental health treatment inflicted severe mental and emotional distress and exacerbated Clark's SMI by depriving him of the opportunity to engage in normal human interactions, which promote mental health and well being, such as talking with or seeing others, working, participating in educational or rehabilitative programs, or attending religious services.²⁴

Clark seeks damages, a declaration that defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, a permanent injunction requiring defendants to cease violating Clark's Eighth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 rights, and to protect him against dangerous and unconstitutional conditions of confinement.²⁵

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

In analyzing a motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), a review of Rule 8(a)(2) is necessary.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitledto relief." As the Court held in Twombly . . . , the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement."²⁶

Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'"²⁷ The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve disputed facts or decide the merits of the case.²⁸ "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims."²⁹ A motion to dismiss may be granted only if, after, "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief."³⁰

The factual allegations must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)."³¹ A plaintiff is obliged "to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'" beyond "labels and conclusions."³² Heightened fact pleading isnot required: rather, "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" must be alleged.³³ "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief."³⁴ The plausibility standard does not rise to a "probability requirement," but requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."³⁵ Unsupported allegations, "bald assertions," and "legal conclusions" are rejected.³⁶ "[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss," determination of which is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."³⁷ Well-pled facts that only infer the "mere possibility of misconduct," do not show "'the pleader is entitled to relief'" under Rule 8(a)(2).³⁸

"To decide a motion to dismiss, courts generally consider only the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record."³⁹ Rule 12(d) addresses the use of materials which are outside the pleadings inmotions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). When such materials are presented, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment. However, certain additional materials may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. A court is not limited to the four corners of the complaint and may consider "'matters incorporated by reference integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders [and] items appearing in the record of the case.'"⁴⁰ A plaintiff is entitled to notice and a fair opportunity to respond to any evidence the court might consider in its review of a motion to dismiss. Where a plaintiff has such notice, however, it is proper for the court to consider that evidence.⁴¹

Section 1983 of the United States Code provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree wasviolated or declaratory relief was unavailable. . . .⁴²

To adequately plead a violation of § 1983, "a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual action, has violated ...