Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Daniels

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

February 27, 2017

GEORGE HENRY MOORE, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
CALVIN DANIELS, JASON EVANS, and JAMES DUNLOW, Defendants.

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge.

         The matter comes before the court on the parties' cross-motions for motion for summary judgment (DE 31, 37) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). The issues raised have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         On January 12, 2015, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Assistant Unit Manager Calvin Daniels (“Daniels”), Jason Evans (“Evans”), and James Dunlow (“Dunlow”). Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated his rights pursuant to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution when they failed to protect plaintiff from the possibility of inmate-on-inmate violence, wrongfully disciplined him, and then demoted him to intensive control (“ICON”) custody status. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants violated his rights pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when they placed him on ICON custody status. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to appoint counsel. On June 22, 2015, the court denied plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel, but allowed plaintiff to proceed with this action. Plaintiff then filed second and third motions to appoint counsel, which the court also denied.

         On June 28, 2016, defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff's action against defendant Dunlow should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Defendants argue that the remainder of the action should be dismissed because plaintiff is unable to establish a constitutional violation. Alternatively, defendants assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. As part of their motion, defendants filed a statement of material facts as well as an appendix which consisted of defendants' respective responses to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and defendants' responses to plaintiff's request for production of documents. The motion was fully briefed. On July 22, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff additionally filed a personal affidavit and statement of material facts. The motion was fully briefed. On the same date, plaintiff filed a fourth motion to appoint counsel, which the court denied.

         STATEMENT OF FACTS

         The undisputed facts may be summarized as follows. On November 11, 2014, plaintiff, an inmate housed in regular population on the green unit at Bertie Correctional Institution (“Bertie”), submitted a request for protective housing. (DE 33, Ex. 4, p. 6). Plaintiff provided the following statement in support of his request: “During the last few months I have been having problems in the cell block with inmates extorting money from me. I just decided that I did not want to keep giving my money away to gang members.” (Id., Ex. 4, pp. 7-8). In response to his request, plaintiff immediately was transferred to administrative segregation on the red unit so that staff could complete a control investigation into plaintiff's allegations that he was in danger if he remained in regular population. (Compl. ¶ IV; DE 33, Ex. 1, p. 3; Ex. 4, p. 66).

         Approximately two weeks later and after further investigation, Bertie staff determined that there was no evidence to support a finding that plaintiff required protective housing because plaintiff “did not give any names up who he said was extorting money from him.”[1] (DE 33 Ex. 4, p. 66). The investigation further revealed that plaintiff had made a similar unsubstantiated request for protective custody at Hyde Correctional Institution (“Hyde”) in 2013. (Id.) At the conclusion of the investigation, defendant Daniels approached plaintiff and asked plaintiff if he intended to return to regular population. (Id.) Plaintiff responded that he did not intend to return to regular population. (Id.) Daniels then “authorized” defendant Evans to give plaintiff a direct order to return to regular population on November 24, 2014. (Id.) Plaintiff refused defendant Evans' order, and was charged with a C-03 disciplinary offense for refusing to obey a direct order. (DE 33, Ex. 4, p. 14). The statement plaintiff provided in the course of the disciplinary investigation provides in pertinent part:

[I] felt that my life was in danger and that I would like to be placed on protective custody. For about a few months I have been having problems with inmates in my cell-block that I suspected were gang-members that have been extorting canteen items from me. When I would go outside to the recreation yard, hygiene and canteen items would be stolen from my room. I was told that it was a form of rent. I complied due to eye[]witnessing numerous instances of inmates getting physically abused by a group of inmates in which I did not want any retaliation. I feel that there is very poor security here a[t] Bertie. So, I decided to place myself on protective custody. . . . I was not spoken to by any staff here at Bertie concerning my custody status until I was given a direct order to return back to the regular population by [] Evans. I was not given the proper document to sign that would release me back into the regular population if I felt that I was no longer in danger.

(Id. pp. 8-10). Plaintiff subsequently pleaded guilty to the C-03 offense and was sentenced to the following: 15 days segregation; 10 days loss of good-time credit; 20 hours of extra duty; 30 days suspension of privileges; and one month of limited draw. (Id. p. 14).

         On December 3, 2014, defendant Dunlow gave plaintiff a second direct order to leave protective custody and to return to regular population. (Compl. ¶ IV). Plaintiff again refused, and was charged with a second C-03 disciplinary offense for refusing to obey a direct order. ((DE 33), Ex. 4, p. 26). Plaintiff declined to provide a written statement after receiving the second C-03 disciplinary charge. (Id.) On December 10, 2014, the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) conducted a hearing on plaintiff's C-03 charge and provided the following summary:

Inmate Moore states that he was never given a direct order, but was ask if he wanted to return to regular population. Inmate Moore writes that Mr. Dunlow approached his cell and ask if he was going to regular population and he refused, therefore he did not refuse a direct order. In the [‘]for accused inmate use only['] section, inmate Moore checked [‘]no['] for written statements and did not check [‘]yes['] or [‘]no['] for live witnesses.
Inmate Moore checked [‘]yes['] for physical evidence and stated during the hearing that he wanted the facility control investigation reviewed during the hearin[g]. The DHO denied the request due to relevance and inmate Moore stating during the hearing that he did not provide any information for the facility to investigate.
Inmate Moore checked [‘]yes['] for staff assistance. Based on the reporting party's statement and the investigating officer's report, inmate Moore is found guilty of the C03 offense.

(Id. p. 30). As a result of the second C-03 disciplinary conviction, the DHO sentenced plaintiff to the following: 30 days of segregation; 20 days loss of good-time credit; 30 hours of extra duty; 60 days of suspension of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.