South v. Walker et al
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 9, 2014. (ES)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
BRADLEY WAYNE SOUTH
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION No. 5:14cv30-MTP
GABRIEL WALKER, et al.
DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court following the Court’s findings at the omnibus hearing
in this case. Having considered Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds that (1) Plaintiff’s allegations
against Defendant Frank Shaw should be dismissed; (2) Plaintiff’s allegation against Nicole
VanNorman should be dismissed; and (3) Plaintiff’s allegations against an Unknown Unit Manager
should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff Bradley Wayne South, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Southern
Mississippi Correctional Institution (“SMCI”). South’s claims arose from alleged events that took
place while he was an inmate at Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (“WCCF”). South’s claims
relate to two separate attacks from other inmates and his resulting injuries. The parties appeared and
participated in an omnibus hearing before the Court on October 7, 2014. Plaintiff appeared pro se.
Steven Griffin appeared on behalf of Defendants Gabriel Walker, Frank Shaw and Nicole
VanNorman.
1
ANALYSIS
Claims Against Defendant Frank Shaw
South alleges that Defendant Shaw, in his supervisory role as Warden of WCCF, failed to
protect South from a November 12, 2013 attack by a fellow inmate. South alleges that the inmate
had a well-known history of violence, and had been placed in South’s cell by another defendant to
this action, Gabriel Walker. South also alleges that Shaw failed to adequate train and supervise his
staff, which resulted in the attack. South does not allege that Defendant Shaw was personally
involved in any decision that put South and his attacker in close proximity.
There is no vicarious or respondeat superior liability of supervisors under section 1983.
Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-4 (5th Cir. 1987). To survive the initial screening process,
a prisoner must allege that “he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.” Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999). In order to act with deliberate indifference, “the
[defendant] must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn and that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Neals v. Norwood, 59
F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837). Negligently failing
to protect a detainee does not amount to a constitutional violation. Dilworth v. Box, 53 F.3d 1281,
1005 WL 295885, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 1995). Here, South does not allege that Defendant Shaw
was aware of the fact that the inmate placed with South had a history for violence, or that he even
knew or had reason to know that South was being placed in another cell. Thus, he has not alleged
a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference.
As for the failure to supervise claim, a prisoner must allege (1) the supervisor either failed
2
to supervise the subordinate officials; (2) a causal link exists between the failure to train and the
violation of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3) the failure to supervise amounts to deliberate indifference.
Goodman v. Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Smith v. Brenoettsy, 158 F.3d
908, 911-12 (5th Cir. 1998)). In order to establish deliberate indifference in a Section 1983 action
for failure to supervise, a plaintiff must demonstrate a pattern of violations and that the inadequacy
of supervision is obvious and likely to result in a constitutional violation. Id. Supervisory liability
can also exist if the supervisory official implements a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a
repudiation of constitutional rights. Thompkins, 828 F.2d at 304. Here, South has not alleged that
Shaw was personally involved in the alleged incident, that there is any causal link between Shaw’s
failure to train and any violation of South’s rights, or that this failure amounted to deliberate
indifference. He has also failed to allege that Shaw has implemented any policy that resulted in a
deprivation of South’s rights.
For these reasons, South has failed to state a claim against Defendant Shaw, and any claims
against him are dismissed.
Claims Against Nicole VanNorman
South alleges that after he was attacked by a group of inmates on November 6, 2013, he went
to WCCF case manager Nicole VanNorman in order to procure “red tags” for his attackers. Red tags
are part of a method by which WCCF separates inmates who pose a danger to one another. South
alleges that although VanNorman processed his requests, red tags were not issued to all his
attackers, and that this put him at risk. South does not allege that he was attacked a second time by
any of the inmates that were not issued a red tag.
South attempts to allege a failure to protect claim but he has suffered no injury as a result of
3
the alleged failure. Accordingly, any claims against Defendant VanNorman shall be dismissed.
Claims Against Unknown Unit Manager
South alleges that after his encounter with Defendant VanNorman, he went to an
unidentified Unit Manager to ensure that he was separated from his attackers. South alleges that
the Unit Manager threatened him and called him names, and refused to listen to his claims or
separate South for his own safety. Plaintiff alleges that the Unit Manager insisted that he return
to his housing unit, but that Plaintiff refused to do so out of fear. When Plaintiff refused the Unit
Manager’s commands he was placed in a separate holding cell.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that “mere threatening
language and gestures of a custodial officer do not, even if true, amount to constitutional
violations.” McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983). Moreover, the Unit
Manager’s unsuccessful attempts to return South to his cell do not constitute cognizable claims.
Thus, South has failed to state a claim against the Unit Manager, and all claims concerning
threats, bad language or cursing will be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Frank Shaw are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Nicole VanNorman is dismissed with prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s claims against an Unknown WCCF Unit Manager are dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of October, 2014.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge
4
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?