Williams v. Lloyd

Filing 34

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 25 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Carr; granting 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel, appointing Maura Dawson for Rackim Williams; denying 33 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Additional details set forth in Order. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/10/10.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

R a c k im Williams, P l a in tif f , v. O f f ic e r Sgt. K. Loyd, D e f e n d a n t. ____________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C / A No.: 2:09-2289-JFA-RSC

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Rackim Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c la im in g violations of his constitutional rights with regard to the defendant's alleged use of e x c es s iv e force on the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendant violated h is Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. At the time the e v e n ts in this action arose, the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Special Management Unit (S M U ) at Lee Correctional Institution. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a comprehensive Report a n d Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should deny the defendant's motion f o r summary judgment.2 The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 7 3 .0 2 . The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive w e i g h t , and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific o b j e c t i o n is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e , or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of t h e summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for s u m m a r y judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.
2

1

1

la w on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. Specifically, the M a g is tra te Judge opines that the court should reject the defendant's arguments that (1) the p la in tif f has not exhausted all of his available administrative remedies; (2) his constitutional rig h ts were not violated; and (3) the defendant is protected under the doctrine of qualified im m u n ity. The Magistrate Judge thus recommends that the matter be set for trial. T h e parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n . The defendant has objected to the Report, challenging the Magistrate J u d g e 's recommendation on all three issues. The court has carefully reviewed the objections a n d finds no basis for disturbing the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition of this c a se . R e g a rd in g the exhaustion requirement, the Magistrate Judge points out that as of the d a te of the Report and Recommendation (April 28, 2010), the plaintiff's grievance had been la n g u is h in g with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) since August 4, 2 0 0 8 , a period of one and one-half years. As of the date of this order, the plaintiff's g rie v a n ce has been pending for more than two years. Significantly, SCDC Policy GA-01.12 p ro v id e s that "under no circumstances will the grievance process exceeds 180 days." The Magistrate Judge suggests that when a prisoner files a grievance and has not re c eiv e d a timely determination, the grievance may be considered exhausted under the Prison L itig a tio n Reform Act (PLRA). In response to this suggestion, the defendant again contends th a t because the plaintiff has yet to obtain a decision on his grievance, he has not exhausted h is remedies. In the objection memorandum, the defendant contends that "plaintiff is due to

2

re c eiv e a response to his Step 2 grievance on or before June 3, 2010. Plaintiff will then have an opportunity to appeal the Step 2 response to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court s h o u ld he so desire." T h e court is not persuaded by this argument. To begin with, it is incorrect for the d e f e n d a n t to suggest that it is necessary for the plaintiff to take his grievance all the way to th e South Carolina Administrative Law Court. As Chief Judge David Norton noted in a re c en t decision: [ T h e plaintiff] satisfied the PLRA requirements when his Step 2 grievance was d e n ie d by the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The PLRA requires th e exhaustion of remedies within the Agency only, not resort to the appellate s ta te courts. B ro w n v. Evans Corr. Inst. Medical Staff, C/A No. 2:06-2464 (decided Apr. 30, 2007) citing W o o d fo r d v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2386 (2006). B e c a u se this court agrees with the plaintiff that he has done everything possible to fu lly exhaust his available administrative remedies, the court rejects the defendant's o b je c tio n based on lack of exhaustion. A s to the claim on the merits, the Magistrate Judge is unquestionably correct in s u g g e s tin g that this case presents a classic factual dispute about what happened in a tense situ a tio n at a facility maintained by the SCDC. Accepting, as it must, the facts and all in f e re n c es to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court has d e te rm in e d that genuine issues of material fact exist, and that summary judgment should be d e n ie d . L ik e w is e , the qualified immunity defense is of no avail to the defendant here. The law 3

o n excessive force in a prison setting has been and is well-established. F in d in g no merit to any of the objections that have been made, the court finds the M a g is tra te Judge's recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by r e f e r e n c e. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied and this case will be trie d during the two-month term of court beginning with jury selection on November 9, 2010. T h e court appoints Columbia, South Carolina attorney Maura Dawson to represent the p la in t if f at the trial of this case. Ms. Dawson's duties are limited to consulting with the p lain tiff and his witnesses in an effort to prepare for trial, subpoenaing the necessary w itn e ss e s and documents to have them available at trial, and participating in the trial on the m e rits . In other words, the court will not reopen discovery. T h e court will conduct a status conference to prepare this case for trial on a date re a s o n a b ly near the jury selection date. In the meanwhile, the parties should confer and determine if it is possible to consent to a bench trial of this case. Additionally, defense counsel should immediately inform the c o u rt, by way of electronic filing, of the first name of the defendant so that the caption may b e amended accordingly. P lain tiff has filed a separate motion seeking free copies of the motions filed in his c a se . As counsel has been appointed for the plaintiff, his motion is denied. The motion for a preliminary injunction is also denied, without prejudice, to be renewed (if at all) when p la in tif f 's newly-appointed counsel has had an opportunity to review the case file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S ep tem b er 10, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

5