Martinez v. Hall, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-119

HARLEM MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN HILTON HALL; GREG DOZIER;ASST. WARDEN RICK STONE;LINDA WALKER; and TIMOTHY WARD, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

March 5, 2020

ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's asserts a claim in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 32 at 1. Plaintiff, who only speaks and reads Spanish, alleges a discriminatory prison policy has denied him access to Spanish-language legal materials. Id. The parties completed discovery in this case, and Defendants have now filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Docs. 87, 90. Plaintiff filed a Response to these Motions, doc. 96, Defendants filed Replies, docs. 100, 101, and Plaintiff filed a Surreply in objection to certain documents Defendants attached to their Replies, doc. 102. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Compel Discovery. Docs. 85, 86. Because Plaintiff has not presented a genuine issue of material fact, I RECOMMEND the Court GRANT Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint. I also RECOMMEND the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE this case and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. Finally, I DENY Plaintiff's Motions to Compel.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of his rights to equal protection and access to the courts and for conspiracy. Doc. 32. Plaintiff also sought to bring the claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals. Id. Plaintiff's claims all arose from a policy at the facility where Plaintiff is incarcerated, Coffee Correctional Facility ("CCF"). The prison library at CCF contains only English-language materials, apart from one bilingual book. Id. Based on the lack of other Spanish-language legal materials, Plaintiff asserted the prison has implemented a discriminatory policy against Spanish-speaking Hispanic inmates. Id. As relief, Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from discriminating or retaliating against him, $5,000 in compensatory damages from each Defendant, jointly and severally, $15,000 in punitive damages from each Defendant, jointly and severally, a jury trial, court costs, appointment of counsel, and all other relief the Court deems just, proper, and equitable. Id. at 10.

The Magistrate Judge conducted a frivolity review of Plaintiff's Complaint and found Plaintiff arguably stated a colorable equal protection claim but recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's access to courts, conspiracy, class action, and preliminary injunctive relief claims. Doc. 13 at 11-12. The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation over Plaintiff's objections. Doc. 51. Therefore, the only claim remaining is Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants for damages and injunctive relief. The parties have now completed discovery, and Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Docs. 87, 90.

II. Undisputed Facts¹

Plaintiff has been a state prisoner at CCF since March 2015. Doc. 90-4 at 2. Plaintiff, who is originally from El Salvador, speaks little English and cannot read or write in English. Doc. 90-3 at 9-10. Rather, Plaintiff fluently speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish. Id. at 10. The CCF law library contains only one bilingual law book: West's Spanish to English Law Dictionary. Id. at 13. There is no indication in the record that CCF provides legal materials in any language other than English, with the exception of the one bilingual legal dictionary. Plaintiff has had to receive help from other inmates who have assisted him in translating his legal research and materials. Id. at 12-13.

CCF is operated by CoreCivic, Inc., a private prison facility. Doc. 87-1 at 4, 6. Regarding the prison library, CoreCivic prisons in Georgia follow CoreCivic policies rather than Georgia Department of Corrections' policies. Id. at 8. The legal materials placed in CoreCivic libraries are not determined by wardens or local prison staff but by the legal department at CoreCivic headquarters. Id. CoreCivic uses a Lexis/Nexis subscription at its Georgia facilities "specifically curated for incarcerated populations in each U.S. jurisdiction." Id. However, the service is only available in English. Id. at 9. Lexis/Nexis does not offer a Spanish language version of the subscription service, nor does it offer a translation service for provided English materials. Id. Nor do Lexis/Nexis competitors, such as Westlaw, offer similar legal materials in Spanish. Id. The Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook, which is provided in CoreCivic prisons across the country, is also not presently available for purchase in Spanish. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment "shall" be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute about a material fact is genuine and summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. However, there must exist a conflict in substantial evidence to pose a jury question." Hall v. Sunjoy Indus. Grp., Inc., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), and Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th Cir. 1989)). "If the evidence [produced by the nonmoving party] is merely colorable or is not significantly probative summary judgment must be granted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 at 249 (1986) (citations omitted).

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the moving party must identify the portions of the record which establish that there are no "genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may discharge his burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to prove his case at trial. See id. (citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, a court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in a light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party. Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee County, 630 F.3d 1346, 1353 (11th Cir. 2011).

DISCUSSION

Defendants collectively raise seven arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) Plaintiff's alleged discrimination was not on account of his membership in a suspect class; thus, CCF's policy merits only rational basis review, and under such standard, Plaintiff's claim fails; (2) Plaintiff cannot prove Defendants intentionally discriminated against him; (3) Plaintiff, as a non-English speaker, cannot prove he has been treated differently than similarly situated inmates; (4) Plaintiff fails to assert a causal relationship between Defendants' actions and any violation of Plaintiff's equal protection rights; (5) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any injury due to the absence of Spanish-language materials; (6) Plaintiff is precluded from monetary relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); and (7) Defendant Dozier is entitled to qualified immunity. Docs. 87, 90.

Plaintiff asserts in his Response that the prison's policy is explicitly race-based in its effect and treats "Plaintiff, a 'Hispanic' prisoner, and all other 'Hispanic' prisoners at CCF, who can't read or write the English language differently because of their race." Doc. 96-2 at 4 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, argues Plaintiff, the Court should apply strict scrutiny to the prison policy, and the prison has no compelling interest for failing to provide more than one bilingual legal book in the CCF law library. Id. Plaintiff also argues the Court should treat all inmates, "regardless of race or language barrier," as similarly situated because of "basic commonalities," such as their custody by the State, subjection to the same general policies, and common goal of their incarceration, i.e., reform and rehabilitation. Id. at 5. Finally, Plaintiff argues qualified immunity should not apply. Id. at 6.

The Court concludes Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff does not establish the alleged discrimination was based on his membership in a suspect class, cannot establish intentional discrimination, and cannot prove he has been treated differently than similarly situated inmates, and because Defendants can articulate a rational basis for the prison law library's lack of more than one Spanish-language law book. These conclusions warrant summary judgment in Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's only remaining claim in this action, and, therefore, the Court need not address Defendants' other arguments.

I. Equal Protection

Plaintiff's sole cause of action is for an alleged violation of his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 51. The Equal Protection Clause requires the Government to treat similarly situated people alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985), superseded by statute on other grounds. To establish such a claim, a prisoner must show: "(1) he is similarly situated with other prisoners who received more favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory treatment was based on some constitutionally protected interest, such as race."...