Weathington v. Clark et al

Filing 29

JUDGMENT - 22 Report and Recommendations overruled in part and approved and adopted in part. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 4/12/16. (cr)

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

JEROME WEATHINGTON
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:15CV171-MPM-SAA

OFC. CLARK, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge dated March 30, 2016, and Plaintiff’s objections thereto. Upon consideration of the file
and records in this action, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation should be overruled in part and approved and adopted in part.
By way of history, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit raising twentynine claims concerning circumstances and conditions at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman (“Parchman”). He requested only injunctive relief as to Claims 6-8, 10-15, 18-19, 23,
and 25-29. After filing the complaint, he was moved to the South Mississippi Correctional
Institution, located outside of this judicial district. The Magistrate Judge concluded that
Plaintiff’s claims requesting only injunctive relief should, therefore, be dismissed as moot.
Plaintiff raises five objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
four of which relate to claims for which Plaintiff sought only injunctive relief. In his objections
to the dismissal of these claims, Plaintiff maintains that the conditions underlying the claims are
systemic and exist at all Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) facilities. The Court
determines that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff’s transfer renders his claims
for injunctive relief moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding
transfer from unit rendered prisoner’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot). Plaintiff
is not precluded from pursuing claims concerning conditions at the facility where he is currently

housed by virtue of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, but he must file a lawsuit challenging those
conditions in the district wherein he is housed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue statute).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to his claims seeking injunctive relief are overruled.
Plaintiff’s remaining objection concerns the recommendation that his loss of personal
property claim be dismissed. Weathington, a federal inmate, was transferred to MDOC custody
in May 2015. According to Weathington, he later attempted to have his personal property mailed
to him, but the mailroom at Parchman rejected the package in August 2015 for the sender’s
failure to include a return address on the package. The property is now presumably lost. The
Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this claim based on the Parratt-Hudson doctrine,
which holds that “a state actor’s random and unauthorized deprivation of a plaintiff’s property
does not result in a violation of procedural due process rights if the state provides an adequate
postdeprivation remedy.” Alexander v. Ieyoub, 62 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation
omitted).
Plaintiff objects to the recommendation of dismissal, arguing that his property loss was
not “random and unauthorized,” but rather, it was rejected pursuant to the MDOC mail policy.
Accepting Plaintiff’s allegation as true, the Court finds that this claim should be allowed to
proceed against MDOC Commissioner, Marshall Fisher. See, e.g., Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d
322, 327-28 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting that if the state can provide predeprivation process, the
Parratt-Hudson analysis is inapplicable); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-20 (granting
commissioner power to establish rules, regulations, and policy).
It is, therefore, ORDERED:
1. That Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as
to the loss of his personal property claim is SUSTAINED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation is OVERRULED as to that claim and the dismissal of Marshall Fisher as

2

a defendant. The previously entered Process and Scheduling order is applicable to this claim and
defendant.
2. That Plaintiff’s remaining objections are OVERRULED, and that the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated March 30, 2016, is hereby
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court as to all other claims and
defendants.
3. That Ms. Robinson, 24 Unknowns, Richard Pennington, Tony Foster, Ron King, and
Earnest Lee are DISMISSED from this cause.
4. That the following claims are DISMISSED: the Administrative Remedy Program’s
unreasonably lengthy response time; insect and rodent infestation; forced recreation in long
pants; unconstitutional administrative segregation conditions; broken windows and cracks in the
walls in Unit 29G; unreasonable work hours for guards; the lack of cleaning supplies; tasteless
food; general guard assaults on inmates; unequal distribution of toilet paper; the absence of
mirrors; failure to provide indigents or those on restriction with hygiene items; general officer
threats to inmates; restriction to use of force policy; the absence of sprinklers; the absence of
emergency duress buttons; the absence of tables for eating or writing; the absence of hooks on
which to hang clothing; and inadequate recreational time.
5. That Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the remaining Defendants will PROCEED.
THIS the 12th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Michael P. Mills
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3