Tilmon v. Soignier

1

TERRY DALE TILMON v. NICOLE SOIGNIER, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-5896

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

March 20, 2023

SECTION P

TERRY A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Kayla Dye McClusky United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff Terry Dale Tilmon, a prisoner at Madison Parish Correctional Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on approximately November 4, 2022, under 42 U.S.C § 1983. He names the following defendants: Lieutenant Nicole Soignier, Sergeant Ethan Soignier, Sergeant Rebecca Shaw, Chief Duchesne, Sheriff Gilley, Richland Parish Police Jury (“RPPJ”), Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden Wade, the Louisiana Department of Corrections (“LDC”), and the Regional Disciplinary Board.^[1]

For reasons below, the Court should retain the following claims:

o that in retaliation for Plaintiff's grievances concerning the confiscation of his watch, Nicole Soignier tested him for drugs twice in less than sixty days, falsely charged him with “contraband,” intentionally switched his urine sample with another inmate's sample and placed him in administrative segregation;

o that Nicole and Ethan Soignier performed harassing non-random drug tests/urinalyses on him;

o that, under a state law conversion theory, on January 26 2022, Lieutenant Nicole Soignier destroyed his headphones and Sergeant Ethan Soignier destroyed his remaining property, including clothing, religious books, C.D. players, a cassette player, compact discs, cassettes, art supplies, sharpies, and one silver Fossil watch; o that, under Section 1983, Sergeant Shaw, Chief Duchesne, Sheriff Gilley, and Warden Wade exposed Plaintiff to unreasonably high levels of e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke;

o that Chief Duchesne, Warden Wade, and Sheriff Gilley were negligent in failing to create a non-smoking policy and failing to control the introduction of tobacco;

o that Sheriff Gilley was negligent in failing to “create protocol for the eradication of toxic black molds and mildew” and that Warden Wade was negligent in failing to remedy the black mold and mildew; and

o that Sheriff Gilley and Warden Wade violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights to receive books, magazines, periodicals, and mail from family or friends.

The Court should dismiss the claims listed below in the “Recommendation” section of this Report and Recommendation.

Background

Plaintiff was transferred from Union Parish Detention Center to Richland Parish Detention Center (“RPDC”) on October 22, 2021. [doc. # 1, p. 4]. His claims here arise from actions or omissions at RPDC. He was transferred from RPDC to Franklin Parish Detention Center on June 15, 2022. Id. at 11.

Plaintiff states that when he arrived at RPDC on October 22, 2021, Lieutenant Nicole Soignier confiscated his property, including his books, C.D. players, and art supplies without giving him a property inventory receipt. [doc. # 1, p. 4]. On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a grievance about his property. Id. at 5. Sergeant Rebecca Shaw responded: “I reviewed your grievance. I spoke to you about mailing your property home. You will have a complete inventory of whatever you are sending home.” Id.

Plaintiff claims that on November 15, 2021, Nicole Soignier falsely charged him via rule violation report with “contraband.” [doc. # 9, pp. 3, 10]. He claims that Nicole Soignier charged him in retaliation for his verbal grievance against her concerning the confiscation of his watch. [doc. # 9, p. 3].

Plaintiff alleges that the Regional Disciplinary Board (“RDB”) remanded the rule violation report to Nicole Soignier, instructing her to remove another inmate's name from the report. [doc. # 9, p. 10]. Plaintiff alleges that the RDB lacked the authority to “have the contents of the report changed[.]” Id. He claims that the RDB violated his right to procedural due process when it denied his motion to produce exonerative camera footage. Id. He claims that his parole eligibility date was delayed from November 15, 2021, until May 25, 2023, “because of Nicole's conduct as well as the disciplinary board's unlawful procedures.” Id.

Plaintiff claims that in retaliation for his grievances, Lieutenant Nicole Soignier, Sergeant Ethan Soignier, and Chief Duchesne conspired to target him for drug testing without reasonable suspicion. [doc. #s 1, p. 14; 9, pp. 3-4]. He maintains that the testing “is mandated to be random[.]” [doc. # 1, p. 14]. Other offenders were never selected for drug screening, but he was selected three times in less than sixty days. [doc. # 9, p. 4].

Plaintiff claims that Chief Duchesne, Sergeant Shaw, and Sheriff Gilley exposed him to unreasonable levels of environmental tobacco smoke and electronic cigarette vapor. [doc. #s 1, p. 13; 9, pp. 1-4]. On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff moved to “D dorm” to try and avoid the smoke and vapor, but D dorm “was no different than the other dorms.” [doc. # 9, p. 1]. The smoke and vapor caused Plaintiff nose bleeds, sleeplessness, headaches, shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, dizziness, fear, anguish, emotional distress, and a rise in blood pressure which allegedly exposed him to risks of stroke, heart disease, colorectal cancer, and gastrointestinal disorders. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff claims that Chief Duchesne, Warden Wade, and Sheriff Gilley were negligent in failing to create a non-smoking policy. [doc. # 9, pp. 3-4, 6-7].

Plaintiff claims that Lieutenant Nicole Soignier and Sergeant Ethan Soignier destroyed his property in retaliation for his grievances against Lieutenant Soignier. [doc. # 1, p. 13].

Plaintiff claims that on March 31, 2022, Chief Duchesne and Sergeant Shaw violated his right to equal protection when they (1) ordered him to send his watch home yet (2) did not order other prisoners to send their watches home. [doc. #s 1, p. 13; 9, pp. 1-2]. “[T]here was no rule or regulation prohibiting the possession of a watch, nor was [Plaintiff] afforded an administrative hearing prior to deprivation.” [doc. # 9, p. 2]. Plaintiff claims that “Shaw's actions were in retaliation for his filing of numerous grievances regarding the destruction of his property among other things.” [doc. # 9, p. 2].

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including mildew, toxic black mold, dust, and the stench of feces, urine, and flatus. [doc. # 1, pp. 14-15]. He faults Warden Wade. [doc. # 9, p. 7].

Plaintiff faults Sheriff Gilley for not allowing inmates “adequate time for recreation and exercise.” [doc. # 9, p. 4].

Plaintiff claims that he was unable “to receive any correspondence from family or friends ....” [doc. # 1, p. 15]. He also claims that he was unable to “receive books, magazines, or periodicals of any sort ....” Id. at 15. He faults Warden Wade. [doc. # 9, p. 7].

Plaintiff claims that Sheriff Gilley was negligent by (1) failing to eradicate mildew and toxic black mold; (2) failing to secure mental health services; (3) failing to create a policy allowing Plaintiff to receive books, magazines, and correspondence from family and friends; and (4) failing to end the practice of copying legal mail. [doc. #s 1, p. 17; 9, p. 5].

Plaintiff claims that Sergeant Shaw and Chief Duchesne negligently destroyed his property by failing to properly secure it “with notifications that [the] property was approved to be sent home[.]” Id. at 16.

Plaintiff claims that the LDC and Secretary James LeBlanc failed to monitor or supervise Sheriff Gilley and the RPPJ. [doc. #s 1, p. 16; 9, p. 5]. Plaintiff also claims that the LDC and Leblanc approved his transfer to RPDC “with full knowledge that” RPDC sold e-cigarettes and cigarettes. [doc. # 9, p. 6].

Plaintiff claims that the RPPJ breached its duty to maintain “a good and sufficient jail” by failing to train staff in recognizing mental illness and failing to provide chemicals to remove black toxic mold and dirt. [doc. #s 1, p. 18; 9, p. 5].

Plaintiff alleges that RPDC lacks mental health care. [doc. # 9, p. 9]. He claims that Sheriff Gilley and Warden Wade “are responsible for policy implementation” with respect to “lack of mental health care ....” Id.

Plaintiff seeks compensation, nominal damages, and punitive damages. [doc. # 1, p. 18].

Law and Analysis

1. Preliminary Screening

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.^[2] See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. Courts are also afforded the unusual power to pierce the veil of the factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id.

A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when it contains...