Emilien v. Weeks et al
Filing
103
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 46). Specifically, the Court denies summary judgment as to the following procedural due process claims: the September 6, September 9, and September 21, 2020, incidents and the May 4,2021, out-of-place incident. The Court grants summary judgment as to the remainder of Plaintiff's claims.AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/17/23. (ltap, )
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jonathan Emilien,
v.
Case No. 0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Plaintiff,
ORDER AND OPINION
Major Scott Weeks, Lieutenant Hardy,
Lieutenant B. Cox,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R
& R”) (Dkt. No. 92) recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 46). Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 96), and
Defendants replied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the
Court.
I.
Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming
Defendants violated his First, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that his procedural due process rights were violated during multiple disciplinary incidents
between July 2020 and May 2021. He claims that he did not receive a copy of the disciplinary
reports, did not receive a hearing, and was not informed of the length of his lockdown. He also
alleges that his substantive due process rights were violated because he was forced to shower naked
in front of recording cameras without privacy, and that female guards were able to see him.
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Weeks violated his Eighth Amendment rights by forcing him
to shower in these conditions and that his equal protection rights were violated when he was
1
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 2 of 6
disciplined more harshly than other inmates. Plaintiff also alleges that his freedom of speech was
violated by the detention center's postcard-only mail policy.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 92). Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R (Dkt. No.
96), and Defendants replied (Dkt. No. 99). The matter is now ripe for the Court’s review.
II.
Standard
A. Review of R & R
The Magistrate Judge makes a recommendation to the Court that has no presumptive
weight leaving the responsibility to make a final determination with the Court. See, e.g., Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R where there are
specific objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where there are no specific objections to the R & R.,
the Court need “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Fed R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note; see also Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection . . . we do not believe that
it requires any explanation.”).
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate if a party “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact” and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). In other words, summary judgment should be granted “only when it is clear that there is no
dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those
facts.” Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). “In determining
2
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 3 of 6
whether a genuine issue has been raised, the court must construe all inference and ambiguities in
favor of the nonmoving party.” HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hosp. v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 101 F.3d
1005, 1008 (4th Cir. 1996). The movant has the initial burden of demonstrating that there is no
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant
has made this threshold demonstration, to survive summary judgment the respondent must
demonstrate that specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue. Id. at 324. Under
this standard, “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a ‘mere scintilla of
evidence’” in support of the non-moving party’s case. Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312
F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Phillips v. CSX Transp., Inc., 190 F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir.
1999)).
III.
Discussion
After careful review of the R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the record on summary
judgment, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge comprehensively addressed the issues and
correctly concluded that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted in part and
denied in part.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis regarding the Plaintiff’s procedural
due process claim. Plaintiff alleges that his procedural due process rights were violated during
multiple disciplinary incidents between July 2020 and May 2021. He claims that he did not receive
a copy of the disciplinary reports, did not receive a hearing, and was not informed of the length of
his lockdown. Under the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment, inmates are entitled to a
hearing for disciplinary actions. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-65 (1974). The Court
agrees that Plaintiff cannot claim a violation of his due process rights for the July 8, 2020, incident,
the March 2021 incident, and the May 2021 incidents because he acknowledged his guilt and
3
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 4 of 6
waived his right to a hearing on the disciplinary form for those incidents. The Court also agrees
that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights regarding
the August 27, 2020, incident and the July 2021 incidents because the record does not show that
Plaintiff was punished for those incidents. Because Plaintiff was not punished, he was not owed a
process. The Court also agrees that, based on the record, a reasonable jury could find that
Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights by imposing restitution without a hearing for
incidents that occurred between August 27, 2020, and September 22, 2020. Additionally, the Court
agrees that, based on the record, a reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s
due process rights by placing Plaintiff in lockdown for his May 4, 2021, out-of-place charge. The
Court notes that, unlike other forms where the Plaintiff acknowledged his guilt, the May 4 form
provides no indication that Plaintiff pled guilty. Accordingly, the Court denies summary judgment
as to the following procedural due process claims: the September 6, September 9, and September
21, 2020, incidents and the May 4, 2021, out-of-place incident.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis regarding the Plaintiff’s substantive
due process claim. Plaintiff alleges that his substantive due process rights were violated because
he was forced to shower naked in front of recording cameras without privacy, and that female
guards were able to see him. To prevail on a substantive due process claim, Plaintiff must show
that a particular restriction was either (1) imposed with an express intent to punish or (2) not
reasonably related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective. Williamson v. Stirling, 912
F.3d 154, 174 (4th Cir. 2018). In this case, the defendants have provided sworn affidavit testimony
that the shower area in C-Max was designed differently from the shower areas in other parts of the
detention center because C-Max houses inmates with disciplinary issues or who may be on suicide
watch. The shower area in C-Max allows for observation of inmates to some limited degree during
4
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 5 of 6
the shower process. This supervision is appropriate and necessary to prevent inmates from causing
harm to themselves while in the shower area. Therefore, the defendants have met their burden of
showing that the conditions in the shower area of C-Max are reasonably related to a legitimate
nonpunitive governmental objective. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment for
Defendants on this claim.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis regarding the Plaintiff’s Equal
Protection claim. Plaintiff claims that his Equal Protection rights were violated because he was
punished more harshly than other inmates for the same transgressions. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others
with whom he is similarly situated because Plaintiff’s and the other inmate’s respective offenses
were not the same. Defendants have presented disciplinary forms and affidavit testimony from
Defendant Weeks in which he avers that Plaintiff was criminally charged on multiple occasions
for throwing bodily fluids and/or feces—not water—at or on correctional officers. In contrast,
Defendant Weeks avers that the other inmate was charged with a disciplinary offense—but not a
crime—for throwing water at a correctional officer. Because the offenses were different, Plaintiff
cannot show that any disparity in the punishments. Accordingly, the Court grants summary
judgment for Defendants on this claim.
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis regarding the Plaintiff’s First
Amendment claim. Plaintiff claims that the prison’s post-card only mail policy, which restricts
incoming mail to post cards for security purposes, violates his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff
complains that this policy has hindered him from pursuing his writing career because he cannot
communicate effectively with publishing companies. The Court recognizes that inmates retain
their First Amendment rights in prison, but also notes that these rights may be limited or restricted
5
0:21-cv-02330-RMG
Date Filed 01/17/23
Entry Number 103
Page 6 of 6
in the interest of maintain security and order within the facility. The standard from Turner v. Safley
requires that a prison regulation impinging on inmates’ constitutional rights be reasonably related
to legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the detention center’s “postcard-only” mail policy is rationally related to
a legitimate penological interest in maintaining institutional security and preventing the
introduction of contraband through the mail. The Court also notes that there are no easy and
obvious alternatives to the policy that would adequately serve the same penological interest of
preventing contraband. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alternative avenues to
exercise his right to mail correspondence, such as outgoing communications and receiving books
or magazines from publishers. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment for Defendants
on this claim.
IV.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court and
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
No. 46). Specifically, the Court denies summary judgment as to the following procedural due
process claims: the September 6, September 9, and September 21, 2020, incidents and the May 4,
2021, out-of-place incident. The Court grants summary judgment as to the remainder of Plaintiff’s
claims.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/ Richard Mark Gergel___
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
January 17, 2023
Charleston, South Carolina
6
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?