Martinez v. White et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers granting 34 Motion to screen the 32 amended complaint. On screening, IT IS ORDERED that the claim that Plaintiff was denied prison employment based on race under the Equal Protection Claus e of the Fourteenth Amendment shall proceed against Defendants Patton, Lane, and Victoria. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other claims in the 32 amended complaint are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; the official-capacity claims for damages also are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) for seeking monetary relief from Defendants immune from such relief. All claims having been dismissed against Defe ndants Holliman, Grief, and Dunlap, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate them from this action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants Holliman, Dunlap, Patton, Lane, Grief, and Victoria; Counsel of Record; General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
LEONEL MARTINEZ

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13CV-P53-GNS

RANDY WHITE, WARDEN et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Leonel Martinez, a convicted prisoner incarcerated in the Kentucky State
Penitentiary (KSP), has filed a pro se amended complaint (DN 32) in response to a Court Order
(DN 21). Defendants Randy White and Bill Harvey, by counsel, filed a motion for the Court to
screen the amended complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (DN 34). Plaintiff
filed no response. Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to screen (DN 34) the
amended complaint is GRANTED. For the reasons that follow, the Court will allow an equal
protection claim to proceed against Defendants Josh Patton, Tim Lane, and CTO Victoria, and
the Court will dismiss all other claims.
I.
On initial review of the original complaint and its two amendments pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim to proceed
against Defendants KSP Warden Randy White and KSP “U.A., Job Assignment Officer” Bill
Harvey based on Plaintiff’s allegations that he is being denied prison employment because he is
Hispanic (DN 21). On initial review, the Court additionally allowed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint as to his claims of retaliation and regarding his requests for Spanish books and his
confinement in “the hole.”

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff sues Defendants White and Harvey as well as Shea
Holliman; Programs Director Skyla Grief; UA Josh Patton; Deputy Warden Joel Dunlap; UA
Tim Lane; and CTO Victoria. He sues all Defendants in their individual and official capacities
and seeks monetary and punitive damages and injunctive relief “by stopping unfair treatment of
and to inmate.” The allegations raised in the amended complaint are discussed in further detail
below.
II.
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner suing governmental officers and proceeding in forma
pauperis, the Court must review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other
grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On review, a trial court shall dismiss a
complaint, or any portion thereof, if the court determines that an action is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b).
A. Official-Capacity Claims for Damages
The official-capacity claims for damages against all Defendants fail. As state actors sued
in their official capacity for damages, all Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity, Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) (“This [Eleventh Amendment] bar
remains in effect when State officials are sued for damages in their official capacity.”), and are
not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994). The official-capacity claims
for damages, therefore, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and for seeking monetary relief from Defendants immune from such relief.

2

B. Lack of Spanish Books
In the original complaint, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient
facts to state a constitutional claim related to his claim that his requests for Spanish books have
been ignored. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on June 25, 2014, “My Request
for a Spanish Bible and or spanish books was denied! OUR Prison Library does not have any
spanish books and due to my and other people repeated request for spanish books Deputy
Warden Scott Jordan and Program Director Dan Smith Refuse to get these.” While Plaintiff
indicates that Deputy Warden Jordan and Program Director Smith refuse to get Spanish books,
he does not name them as Defendants. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not indicate that he cannot
read English; an attached grievance reveals that there is a means by which he can request/access
Spanish books; and he alleges no harm resulting to him from not having Spanish books in the
prison library. Plaintiff again failing to allege sufficient facts to state a constitutional claim
regarding the lack of Spanish books at KSP, the claim will be dismissed.
C. Placement in “the hole”
On initial review of the complaint and its amendments, the Court construed Plaintiff’s
first amendment in a light most favorable to him and found that he was alleging that for over 90
days he was in “the hole” where he was “locked down 20 Hours a day Monday Thru Friday 24
Hours a day Sat and Sun.” Because Plaintiff failed to attribute his placement in these conditions
to any named Defendant, the Court concluded that he failed to state a claim against them.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff does not specifically mention this claim. He does,
however, allege that on August 7, September 18, and December 4, 2013, “I was given 90 days in
the hole in Retaliation do to me filing greivances to protect me from being harassed by staff and

3

my mail being sent to other prisons to be translated when we have staff here to translate such
mail.”
A retaliation claim essentially entails three elements: (1) the plaintiff
engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the
plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between
elements one and two—that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in
part by the plaintiff’s protected conduct.
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). While the filing of
grievances is protected conduct, see Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 2010), and
placement in “the hole” would be an adverse action, id. at 474 (“[R]estricting a prisoner’s
housing by placing him in administrative segregation constitutes an adverse action.”), Plaintiff
fails to identify any Defendant who was responsible for placing him in “the hole.” The claims
related to his placement in segregation, therefore, will be dismissed.
D. Denied Showers in Retaliation for Filing Lawsuit
In Plaintiff’s first amendment, which the Court considered on its prior initial review of
the complaint and its amendments, Plaintiff stated that he “cant take a shower due to this
Lawsuit.” The Court concluded that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish an
adverse action because the extent of the denial of showers was unknown. The Court further
concluded that Plaintiff failed to attribute the alleged retaliation to any named Defendant.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff claims that on August 7, September 18, and
December 4, 2013, “while in segergation for 90 days staff worker’s Ronald L. Smith,
[C]hristopher J. Moore, Derek M. Roberts, James A Corley Refuse me showers and My mail
being Read by staff while in the hole staff cuss me and throw my food trays in to my cell door
slots.”

4

Although he mentions that he was denied showers on three occasions, Plaintiff does not
allege that this conduct was in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. Even considering that Plaintiff
was denied showers on three occasions in retaliation for filing this lawsuit, the Court concludes
that this does not constitute an adverse action. It is not clear whether Plaintiff also maintains that
these four non-Defendants also read his mail, cussed him, and threw food trays into his cell door
as retaliation, but the Court concludes that such conduct on three dates does not constitute an
adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to file lawsuits.
Further, as before, Plaintiff fails to attribute conduct to any named Defendant. On its prior initial
review, the Court considered two amendments to the complaint and gave Plaintiff another
opportunity to amend the complaint with respect to his retaliation claim, yet he chose not to
name the four “staff worker’s” as Defendants. For these reasons, this retaliation claim will be
dismissed.1
E. Duplicate Claims
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff again claims that Defendant Harvey discriminated
against him by denying him a prison job and again claims that Defendant Grief rejects
grievances and discriminates against him. These claims were addressed on the Court’s initial
review of the complaint. The equal-protection claim against Defendant Harvey continued, and
all claims against Defendant Grief were dismissed. As these claims have been addressed, the
Court will not reconsider them here.

1

Further, the Court finds no Eighth Amendment violation because Plaintiff does not allege that he
has been denied “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981). Additionally, the Court finds no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation
because these conditions did not impose an atypical and significant hardship on Plaintiff in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
5

F. Additional Claims
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff raises additional claims. He states as follows:
Shea Holliman in retaliation do to this Lawsuite has fully discreminated
against me and my brother by refusing my brother visits! Also Josh Patton,
Tim Lane, and Victoria use raceist remarks such as if you wont a job go
back to Mexico. This has been happening from 7-19-14 thru 9-10-14 and
even still to date! I wont this to stop! While I file applications for jobs they
are over looked by the above people and given to other people who are
white, black or indian!
1. Retaliation
As to the retaliation claim against Defendant Holliman, filing a lawsuit is protected
conduct. However, grievances attached to Plaintiff’s amended complaint reflect that his brother
was not refused visits but was only limited in his visits. Plaintiff’s brother was approved for
“special visits” of a two-hour duration during Plaintiff’s time in segregation and for a longer
duration when he was released to general population on June 13, 2014. The Court does not find
this limitation on visitation to be an adverse action in the instant case. The retaliation claim
against Defendant Holliman, therefore, will be dismissed.
2. Denial of Prison Employment Based on Race
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Patton, Lane, and Victoria have denied him jobs because
he is Hispanic. The Court will allow this Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim to
continue against these Defendants.
III.
For the reasons set forth more fully above,
IT IS ORDERED that the claim that Plaintiff was denied prison employment based
on race under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment shall proceed
against Defendants Patton, Lane, and Victoria. The Court will enter a separate Order

6

regarding service on Defendants and a separate Scheduling Order governing the development of
all continuing claims in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other claims in the amended complaint (DN 32)
are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; the official-capacity claims for damages also are DISMISSED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) for seeking monetary relief from Defendants immune from such relief.
All claims having been dismissed against Defendants Holliman, Grief, and Dunlap,
the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate them from this action.
Date:

April 9, 2015

Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants Holliman, Dunlap, Patton, Lane, and Victoria
Counsel of record
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel
4416.005
cc:

7