United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court for preliminary review of
plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(DE 1). Also before the court are plaintiff's motions for
injunctive relief and for copies. (DE 3, 10).
OF THE CASE
commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February
13, 2017 against Bertie Correctional Institution
(“Bertie”) prison staff
(“defendants”), alleging deliberate indifference
to his safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to
be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff sues
defendants in their individual and official capacities and
seeks punitive and compensatory damages in the amount of
$975, 000.00 and injunctive relief. On the same date,
plaintiff filed the instant motion for preliminary injunction
wherein he seeks transfer to a different prison.
OF ALLEGED FACTS
conduct underlying plaintiff's claims occurred while
plaintiff was incarcerated at Bertie, in Windsor, North
alleges that on November 26, 2016, Correctional Sergeant K.
Drew (“Drew”) filed a “false”
disciplinary report against plaintiff for verbal aggression
and disobeying a direct order. Compl. at 6; id., Ex.
A (DE 1-1). As a result, plaintiff was moved “to
segregation” and temporarily placed in a “holding
cage.” Compl. at 6. While there, an unidentified inmate
in a separate holding cell informed plaintiff that
“Drew told him and another inmate that the plaintiff
had allegedly told her that they had been using drugs.”
Id. at 6-7. After plaintiff “was taken to a
cell” later that day, he filed a grievance, wherein he
expressed concern for his safety as a result of Drew's
statements and requested “a transfer.”
Id.; Ex. B (DE 1-1). Plaintiff's
“infraction” was ultimately
“dismissed.” Compl. at 6.
was released from segregation on December 11, 2016.
Id. at 7. Two days later, while working in the
kitchen, another unidentified inmate approached plaintiff and
advised that Correctional Officer Hands (“Hands”)
“told him that the plaintiff had made disrespectful
statements about his gang affiliation, and was in fact about
to fight the plaintiff.” Id.
December 15, 2016, the “other inmate” that Drew
accused of drug use based on information purportedly provided
by plaintiff threatened plaintiff that he and “eight or
nine guys of his entourage” intended to fight him.
Id. at 8. Plaintiff advised Sergeant Fields
(“Fields”) of the threat, who in turn summoned
Lieutenant Thompson (“Thompson”). Id.
Thompson secured plaintiff's signature on a protective
custody form, advised an investigation would occur upon
receipt of plaintiff's statement and placed plaintiff in
Unit Administrator Al Whitney (“Whitney”)
conducted the investigation. Id. Upon conclusion of
the investigation, Whitney met with plaintiff in his cell and
advised, “You have nothing. I've spoken to all
individual's [sic] who say they don't know what
you're talking about.” Id. Whitney then
informed plaintiff that he “would be moved to upper tan
unit above from lower tan unit where plaintiff was
housed” in accordance with the jail's
“policy.” Id. After explaining to
Whitney that he did not “feel safe” despite the
results of the investigation, plaintiff “elected . . .
to remain in segregation.” Id. at 9. Whitney
responded that plaintiff “would just get written
up” pursuant to the jail's “policy.”
December 22, 2016, Correctional Sergeant Leigh ordered
plaintiff to return to the “regular population.”
Id. at 9; Ex. C-1 (DE 1-1). Plaintiff refused,
expressing the same safety concerns to Leigh that he raised
earlier with Whitney. Id. at 9. Leigh, however,
“ignore[d] plaintiff's contentions” and wrote
him up. Id. at 9. That same day, plaintiff received
a Notice of Hearing, wherein the Facility Classification
Committee recommended plaintiff be housed in administrative
segregation due to an “ongoing investigation.”
Id., Ex. D (DE 1-1).
December 30, 2016, plaintiff received a Notice of Action by
Classification Authority, advising him of his assignment to
administrative segregation. Ex. D. (DE 1-1). According to
plaintiff, Leigh's “write up was in fact without
merit.” Compl. at 10. As a result of the write up by
Leigh, plaintiff allegedly endured “mental and
emotional distraughtment [sic] of in fact being punished due
to safety concerns.” Id. at 10.