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.

Manuel v. Lassiter

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

October 25, 2017

BUCKY NATHAN MANUEL, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH LASSITER, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Frank D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), and on his motion for the appointment of counsel, (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee.[1] See (Doc. No. 1).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Pro se Plaintiff Bucky Nathan Manuel has filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the following Defendants in their official capacities: Director of the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Kenneth Lassiter; Mountain View Correctional Institution Superintendent Mike Slagle; and Mountain View C.I. Correctional Officers Burchfield and Winebarger.

         Liberally construing the Complaint and accepting the allegations as true, Plaintiff was working in the kitchen at Mountain View C.I. on January 1, 2016, when Burchfield said that he wanted to strip search Plaintiff and took him into the kitchen stockroom. Instead of conducting a standard strip search, Burchfield had Plaintiff partially disrobe, pointed at Plaintiff's penis and said “That's nice, I like that.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6).

         The next day January 2, 2016, Burchfield took Plaintiff to the kitchen stockroom and ordered him to partially disrobe. Plaintiff told Burchfield that the behavior was inappropriate and Burchfield replied that he could look at Plaintiff's privates any time he wanted to as long as he “didn't try to play with it.” (Doc. No. 6).

         When Plaintiff tried to file a Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) complaint, Wineburger threatened him, saying “Just forget about it, if you know what is good for you.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6). All of Plaintiff's rights concerning filing a PREA complaint were violated and “a cover-up was attempted by staff.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5). In addition “[a]ll [Plaintiff's] right[s] concerning filing a grievance were violated.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5). Burchfield and Winebarger both have histories of sexual and racial complaints but Mountain View C.I. kept “brushing it under the rug.” (Doc. No. 1 at 7).

         Plaintiff filed a PREA action that was substantiated, and as a result of which both Burchfield and Winebarger were fired.

         Plaintiff was transferred to Harnett C.I. where a “racial hate group” told Plaintiff that he “had to pay the price” for getting their “brother” Winebarger fired. (Doc. No. 1 at 7). “They” busted Plaintiff's eye and made him pay them every week. (Id.). Plaintiff was beaten and extorted for approximately eight months at Harnett C.I. due to Winebarger's connections to racial hate groups. Plaintiff asked the Harnett C.I. “Admin” for some PREA support personnel help but it was denied so the “tor[ture]” continued. (Doc. No. 1 at 7).

         Plaintiff was then transferred to Warren C.I. where he was approached by several inmates who told him he could not stay in “population.” (Doc. No. 1 at 7). Gang members threatened Plaintiff in retaliation for Winebarger's firing, and threw chairs and bowls of food at him. Plaintiff spent over 40 days in segregation because gang members were trying to kill him.

         Plaintiff was forced to change his religion due to fear for his safety and severe danger because he was trying to file a PREA on Burchfield for sexual harassment.

         Plaintiff suffered cruel and unusual punishment for over a year while he lived in fear that he would be sexual assault, killed, or injured, due to Burchfield's and Winebarger's actions.

         Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $250, 000, “all the privileges, benefits that I would of earned and received if none of this would of happened, ” the filing fee in this action, and he appears to seek an injunction against retaliation. (Doc. No. 1 at 8).

         II. MOTION FOR THE ...


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.