Jackson v. Hochberg et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 3/17/15. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

RANDY DALE JACKSON

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:14-CV-00089-DMB-SAA

JOHN HOCHBERG; LORENZO CABE;
A. BROWN; MS. TILLIS; JOHN JOE,
MDOC Personnel Corr. Officer; and
EARNEST LEE

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 25, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that “all the claims in the instant case be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Doc. #14 at 5. On October 9,
2014, Plaintiff Randy Dale Jackson filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Doc. #16.
Having considered the file and records in this action, including the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections to the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s objections are without merit and that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted as the opinion
of the Court.
Jackson objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for three reasons.
First, he argues that Superintendent Earnest Lee stated during the grievance process that the
defendants should not have tightened Jackson’s cuffs so tightly. Jackson believes that Lee’s
statement operates as an admission establishing a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

Second, Jackson argues that the Magistrate Judge mistakenly believed that violence
erupted twice on the same day – and that he was restrained immediately after the second violent
incident. Thus, Jackson argues, the Magistrate Judge should have found that the force used to
restrain him was excessive because the defendants had restored order about an hour (rather than
minutes) prior to placing him in restraints.
Third, Jackson argues that the defendants knowingly and unnecessarily placed him and
the other inmates in harm’s way because, the day before the incident, Superintendent Lee had
recommended placing all Mississippi Department of Corrections institutions on lockdown – a
recommendation that the defendants ignored.
All of Jackson’s objections are meritless.
As to Jackson’s first objection, even though Superintendent Lee apparently admitted that
the guards should not have made the restraints so tight, it is for the Court, not the parties, to
determine whether the facts in a given case rise to the level of a constitutional violation. As set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the facts of this case do not.
Regarding Jackson’s second objection – his belief that the Magistrate Judge
misunderstood the facts of the case – the Court finds no error. On the third page of the Report
and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge states, “Rival gangs were at war within the prison.
Just before Jackson was restrained, the war erupted again.” Doc. #14 at 3. Jackson reads this
passage as a statement that violence erupted twice on the same day; however, the Court
disagrees. The Court reads the passage, instead, to state that an ongoing war between rival gangs
led to a single eruption of violence on the day in question.
Jackson believes that, because the gang violence had been quelled about an hour before
he was restrained, there was no need to restrain him at all. He is mistaken. As the Magistrate
Judge correctly found, there was a need to impose strict security measures after such an

2

explosive uprising, and placing each inmate not currently in his cell in restraints was both
rational and prudent under the circumstances.
Finally, Jackson argues that the actions by the defendants in placing all inmates from the
unit into the gymnasium without conducting a proper security search exposed those inmates to an
unreasonable risk of serious physical injury. This may well be true; however, the Court need not
decide that issue at present. As the Magistrate Judge found, Jackson was not injured in any way
during the attack; his de minimis injuries (scraped and bruised wrists) occurred about an hour
later – and are not serious enough to support a claim of deliberate indifference. For these
reasons, the plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are
without substantive merit.
It is, therefore, ordered:
1.

That the plaintiff’s objections [16] to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation are OVERRULED;
2.

That the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [14]

is hereby APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the court; and
3.

That the instant case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted, counting as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915(g).

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3