Son v. Inch

LE VAN SON, Plaintiff, v. MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as the Secretary,Florida Department of Corrections, and JESS BALDRIDGE,in his official capacity as the Warden of Sumter Correctional Institution,¹ Defendants.

Case No: 5:18-cv-265-TPB-PRL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

June 8, 2021

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Status

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by filing a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 8) He is proceeding on an Amended Complaint alleging that he was denied access to a Vietnamese translator in violation of his access to courts and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 10) He sues MarkS. Inch in his official capacity as the Secretary of the FDOC, and Jess Baldridge in his official capacity as the Warden of Sumter Correctional Institution. (Id. at 2) As relief, Plaintiff requests, inter alia, that the Court find Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) of the Florida Administrative Code unconstitutional, issue an order for the appointment of counsel to represent Plaintiff, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. (Doc. 10 at 5)

Before the Court is "Defendants' Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law" (Doc. 41; Motion) with exhibits (Docs. 41-1 through 41-5; Motion Exs. A-E). Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. (Doc. 50; Response) Defendants' Motion is ripe for review.

II. Factual Allegations and Procedural History

Plaintiff is a Vietnamese national with "limited aptitude in English." (Doc. 10 at 5) He is an inmate of the Florida penal system and thus subject to the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) policies and rules. At issue is Rule 33-501.301(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: "Law libraries shall provide interpreters for any language other than English that is native to 5 percent or more of the statewide inmate population." In 2018, Plaintiff initiated this action arguing the Rule is unconstitutional, because it allows the FDOC to exclude interpreters for Vietnamese inmates who account for less than 5 percent of the inmate population. (Doc. 10 at 4)

According to Plaintiff, in 2011, while housed at Franklin Correctional Institution, he requested that the FDOC provide him with a Vietnamese translator to help him read his state court trial transcripts, but the FDOC refused. (Id. at 4) He then claimed that on December 12, 2017, while housed at Sumter Correctional Institution, he again requested but was denied a Vietnamese interpreter "to assist [him] in filing [a] postconviction motion and to interpre[t] trial transcript[s]." (Id. at 5) Plaintiff argued that being denied a translator violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights "guaranteed [to] all other inmates being held in [the FDOC] who are provided with [an] interpreter to assist in filing postconviction motions and other legal pleading[s]." (Id. at 6) He also claimed that being denied a translator deprived him of his First Amendment right of access to the courts. (Id. at 5)

Defendants moved to dismiss (see Doc. 24), and the Court dismissed Plaintiff's access to courts claim and any claim premised on acts that occurred in 2011 (see Doc. 31 at 11-13). The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent they sought to dismiss Plaintiff's equal protection claim stemming from actions occurring after 2011. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff's equal protection claim challenging the constitutionality of Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) is the only claim remaining. Defendants' instant Motion followed.

i. Defendants' Motion

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show that Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) violates the Equal Protection Clause. (Motion at 2) They contend that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) implicates a suspect class. (Id. at 6-10) Instead, they assert that "[t]he policy is based solely on language needs in the inmate population and does not discriminate against inmates based on race or national origin." (Id. at 15) To that end, they maintain that the Court need only evaluate the constitutionality of the Rule under the rational basis standard rather than strict scrutiny. (Id.) In applying that standard of review, Defendants contend that the intent of the FDOC's complete policy on law library access is to provide inmates with various services to meaningfully access the courts. (Id. at 11) (citing Motion Ex. D); see generally Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-501.301. The interpreter policy in Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) "is an attempt to provide additional services to promote access to the courts for non-English speaking inmates." (Motion at 11) Defendants contend that while the "the legislative purpose of the 5 percent classification in the law library policy was not articulated when the rule was developed"; "[t]he policy furthers the penological goal of" providing interpreters to prevalent language needs and "enhancing an inmate's ability to access the court, without placing anunreasonable burden on DOC's resources to provide an interpreter for every inmate in every language." (Id. at 11-12)

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to prove that purposeful discrimination was a motivating factor for the implementation of Rule 33-501.301(3)(d). (Id. at 13) According to Defendants, "when looking at the application of the policy, there is a clear absence of discriminatory purpose or intent based on race or national origin . . . ." (Id. at 14) In support of this argument, Defendants provide the Affidavit of Allen Dean Peterson, Law Library Administrator, who is responsible for providing library services to 67 institutional libraries within the FDOC. (Motion Ex. E at 1-4) Peterson's Affidavit provides the following in relevant part:

I am familiar with Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) . . . . The rule provides interpreters to non-English speaking inmates if the language needed makes up 5 percent or more of the current statewide inmate population. I have researched Rule 33-501.301(3)(d) [ ] but was unable to locate any documentation regarding the purpose or intent of the policy's 5 percent classification.

I have 20 years of experience regarding the practical application of this policy in DOC's institutions.

The law library policy does not pay for professional interpreters to come into the facility to translate for non-English speaking inmates. The policy also does not pay for inmates to have their legal documents translated or transcribed from English to another language.

The law library policy essentially functions as an inmate to inmate assistance program. Generally, DOC staff or certified inmate law clerks, assist with law library interpreter requests. DOC does not contract or pay for a professional service provider for interpreter needs but rather identifies other inmates within DOC that can assist in the needed language. This is a volunteer-based system where inmates assist each other with their legal needs.

The policy may affect inmates differently based on the prevalence of their native language in the prison population. If a native language is uncommon in the inmate population, it is difficult to locate another inmate that can provide assistance because the language is uncommon.

Any disparate impact on groups of non-English speaking inmates is not intentional. The policy does not deny interpreter assistance to an inmate based on race or national origin. A denial is based upon the 5 percent rule and the prevalence of the language in the inmate population.

A prevalent language can be easily accommodated because an interpreter can be easily located and identified. An uncommon language is difficult to accommodate because other inmates or staff who can interpret become rare.

. . .

I have personal experience obtaining inmate to inmate interpreter assistance under the policy. I have assisted many inmates with obtaining interpreters in the Spanish language and a much smaller number in the Haitian Creole language. In my experience, it is relatively easy to obtain inmate to inmate assistance for Spanish and Haitian Creole inmates because their languages are prevalent in the prison population.

I have never been asked to locate a Vietnamese interpreter for an inmate and in my experience, that request would be difficult to accommodate because the language is not prevalent in the prison population.

I have personal experience attempting to accommodate inmates with interpreter requests when languages are uncommon. On one occasion, I attempted to obtain inmate to inmate assistance for a Korean inmate and was unsuccessful in obtaining inmate to inmate assistance for him. As a result, I personally located volunteers from a group of Korean businessmen participating in a program at the University of Florida to come into the facility and assist[] with translating between the inmate and assigned inmate law clerks.

Although I was able to assist the Korean speaking inmate with interpreters in this one situation, it did take several hours of time over the course of many days to locate a volunteer that would be willing to assist the Korean speaking inmate.

In my experience, it would be very difficult and burdensome to continually accommodate interpreter requests when another inmate or staff member cannot be identified for an uncommon language need.

Although the purpose of the 5 percent classification for interpreter services is unknown, the rule prevents DOC staff from having the burden of seeking out volunteer interpreters to assist in uncommon languages. It also relieves any financial obligation DOC may have to pay for private interpreters when volunteers cannot be found.

A non-English speaking inmate is free to seek out their own volunteer interpreter if their language is uncommon in the facility and help cannot be obtained.

(Motion Ex. E at 2-4) Defendants also provide the Affidavit of Lori Nolting, the FDOC's Operations and Management Consultant...