plaintiff's first amended complaint - jackson
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
1/21
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DELMA JACKSON, )
))
Plaintiff, ) CAFN: 5:12-cv-301)
v. ))
CARL HUMPHREY, ))
And ))
TIMOTHY WARD )
in their individual capacity, )
)Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Delma Jackson (Mrs. Jackson) files this Amended
Complaint to add Defendant Timothy Wardand claims against him,
pursuant to this Courts Order granting permission to do so. (ECF 40.) This
is a civil rights action for money damages and emergency injunctive relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 in order to vindicate Mrs. Jacksons
Fourteenth and First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression under the U.S. Constitution, and other rights protected under the
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
2/21
2
Georgia Constitution and laws of this State. To further support of her
complaint that Defendant Carl Humphrey violated her First Amendment
rights while acting under color of state law, Mrs. Jackson alleges and shows
the following:
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Carl Humphrey and Timothy Ward have patently abused
their power. Days after Mrs. Jackson protested in front of Georgias
Department of Corrections headquarters, after her comments to a journalist
were published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and after she wrote the
Commissioner of the Department of Corrections about constitutional
violations regarding her husband and 14 other inmates who were on a
hunger strike at Defendant Humphreys prison, Defendants Humphrey and
Ward permanentlyterminated Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband.
Mrs. Jackson protested Defendant Humphreys treatment of her
husband and other inmates, because verifiable evidence demonstrates that
Mrs. Jacksons husband and approximately 100 inmates were being locked
down in Special Management Unit (S.M.U.) for 23 hours a day, without any
thirty-day due process administrative reviewas required by DOC policy
to justify them being held in S.M.U.; without required baths or yard time as
required by relevant DOC policy; and without reasonable attention to
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
3/21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
4/21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
5/21
5
hunger strike that is ongoing at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification
Prison.
Defendant Humphreys retaliatory conduct violates Mrs. Jacksons
First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression because,
amongst other reasons, this conduct has chilled Mrs. Jacksons desire to
protest against what she believes is unconstitutional conduct by public
officials. Also when Defendant Humphrey violated Mrs. Jacksons
constitutionally protected First Amendment Rights, he was acting under the
color and pretense of federal and state laws as well as the ordinances,
regulations, customs, and usages of the State of Georgia and the policies,
orders, procedures, rules, and regulations of Georgias Department of
Corrections. Therefore, Mrs. Jackson has elected to use 42 U.S.C. 1983 as
the vehicle to vindicate her constitutional rights. Defendant Carl Humphrey
is a U.S. citizen who resides in Georgia and thus may be served with process
at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, HWY 36 West, Jackson,
GA 30233.
6.
At all relevant times to this litigation, Defendant Timothy Ward was
the Assistant Commissioner of Georgias Department of Corrections. On
July 18, 2012, Defendant Timothy Ward made the final decision to terminate
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 5 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
6/21
6
Mrs. Jacksons visitation. Defendant Ward punished Mrs. Jackson because
she demanded a sit down with the Commissioner of the Department of
Corrections. Defendant Ward punished Mrs. Jackson for excessing her First
Amendment Rights, by terminating her visitation because Mrs. Jackson
helped organize groups to lead peaceful protests.
When Defendant Ward terminated Mrs. Jacksons visitation, he knew
Mrs. Jackson could not visit her husband because her visitation had already
been taken away (suspended). Defendant Ward retaliated against Mrs.
Jackson a mere two days after she protested in front of the Department of
CorrectionsHeadquarters in Forsyth, Georgia, and Defendant Ward knew
Mrs. Jackson was present at the July 16, 2012 protest in front of DOC
Headquarters. Through intelligence reports, newspaper articles, and video
footage, Defendant Ward targeted Mrs. Jackson as a leader and organizer of
protest that highlighted perceived unconstitutional conduct of DOC officials
and thus retaliated against her by going beyond suspending her visitation, to
terminating her visitation.
Also when Defendant Ward violated Mrs. Jacksons constitutionally
protected First Amendment Rights, he was acting under the color and
pretense of federal and state laws as well as the ordinances, regulations,
customs, and usages of the State of Georgia and the policies, orders,
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 6 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
7/21
7
procedures, rules, and regulations of Georgias Department of Corrections.
Therefore, Mrs. Jackson has elected to use 42 U.S.C. 1983 as the vehicle
to vindicate her constitutional rights. Defendant Ward is a U.S. citizen who
resides in Georgia and thus may be served with process at 2 Martin Luther
King Jr. Drive, S.E., Atlanta, GA 30334.
FACTS
A. Inmates Exercising Their Right to Refuse Food7.
On June 10, 2012 inmates, including Mrs. Jacksons husband, began a
hunger strike at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison because of
alleged unconstitutional conduct of that prisons Warden, Defendant
Humphrey, and officials under his command.
8.
Mrs. Jackson protested and spoke to the media, as well as wrote the
DOC Commissioner because at the very least, Mrs. Jacksons husband and
another inmate who participated in the hunger strike have been denied
medical treatment or have experienced a deliberate indifference to known
medical conditions that need treatment, for over 18 months.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 7 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
8/21
8
9.
Mrs. Jackson also publicly protested on behalf of her husband and
other inmates held at the S.M.U. facility under Defendant Humphreys
command because many of those inmates have not received required baths.
10.
Mrs. Jackson also protested and spoke to the media because in
addition to her husband and other inmates in S.M.U being locked down 23
hours of the day without required baths and yard time, many of those
inmates were being denied their due process right to a 30-day reviewas
required by DOC policy and procedure at the timeto justify them being
held in S.M.U. Credible evidence indicates that Defendant Humphrey and
officials under his control denied S.M.U. inmates due process for years in
violation of DOC policy. Prior to September 2012, DOC officials essentially
stated that no due process was required for inmates being held in S.M.U.,
because those inmates are allegedly not classified as administrative
segregation/isolation or high max. The provable facts demonstrate that the
inmates who participated in the subject hunger strike were governed by
administrative segregation/isolation policies, evidenced by Defendant
Humphreys misstatement that Shawn Whatley receives at least 3 baths a
week (an administrative segregation/isolation policy) and the DOCsquoted
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 8 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
9/21
9
admission that S.M.U. inmates receive 5 hours per week of yard time
(another segregation/isolation policy). So ultimately, the DOCs position
was that all segregation/isolation polices apply to S.M.U. inmates such as
policies governing required baths and yard time, except the
segregation/isolation policy that guarantees S.M.U. inmates due process
rights to challenge being held on 24 hour lock down, indefinitely. The DOC
(and Defendants Humphrey and Ward) were being disingenuous at the
expense of the constitutional rights of hundreds of S.M.U. inmates,
evidenced by the segregation/isolation checklistused to govern the conduct
of correctional officers who monitor Mrs. Jacksons husband. Rhetorically
speaking, if segregation/isolation policies do not govern S.M.U. inmates,
then, why are guards placing the names of S.M.U. inmates on
segregation/isolation checklist and then using those checklist to govern
conduct related to S.M.U. inmates.
11.
Prior to September 2012, there existed no specific standard operating
procedure that governed (was in effect for) SMU inmates.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 9 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
10/21
10
12.
SMU inmates, prior to September 2012, were governed by the DOCs
general standard operating procedures.
13.
Prior to September 2012, no draft policy specific to SMU was in
effect, to govern SMU inmates.
B. Mrs. Jacksons Public Protest That Defendant Humphrey
Had Knowledge Of Before Violating Her First Amendment
Rights14.
On June 29, 2012 Mrs. Jackson and others protested outside the
Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta, GA about the constitutional violations
occurring at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison under Defendant
Humphreys command. Defendants Humphrey and Ward knew about this
protest before they permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her
husband.
15.
On July 9, 2012, Mrs. Jackson again protested in front of the Georgia
Capitol in Atlanta, GA about the constitutional violations occurring at
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison under Defendant Humphreys
command. Defendants Humphrey and Ward knew about this protest before
they permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 10 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
11/21
11
16.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article about the July
9, 2012 protest referred to in paragraph 11, and Mrs. Jackson is quoted in the
article, alleging that that Georgia Diagnostic and Classification prison under
Defendant Humphrey command have denied medical treatment to inmates
for nearly two years. Defendants Humphrey and Ward read this article or
knew about the article and Mrs. Jacksonspublished comments, before they
permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband.
17.
On July 16, 2012, Mrs. Jackson protested peacefully in front of DOC
headquarters in Forsyth, GA about the constitutional violation occurring at
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison under Defendant Humphreys
command. Defendants Humphrey and Ward knew about this protest before
they permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband.
Notably, while peacefully protesting, a DOC official told Mrs. Jackson that
the DOC Commissioner, Brain Owens, was at Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Prison. A plausible, reasonable inference from that fact is that
while at Defendant Humphreys prison, the Commissioner informed
Defendants Humphrey and Ward about the protest that Mrs. Jackson was
participating in on that day.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 11 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
12/21
12
18.
On July 16, 2012, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article
about the July 16, 2012 protest referred to in paragraph 13. In this article,
Mrs. Jackson is referred to as the leaderof the July 9, 2012 strike in front of
the State Capitol and also is quoted as alleging that the DOC was being
deceptiveabout the hunger strike. Mrs. Jackson demanded a sit down and
pointed out that Defendant Humphrey and officials under his command are
not providing 30 day reviews or ensuring adequate medical care and proper
hygiene in accordance with the facilities own policies. Defendants
Humphrey and Ward read this article or knew about the article and Mrs.
Jackson comments (and her designation as the leader of the protest) before
they permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband
19.
On July 17, 2012 Mrs. Jackson sent a letter to Commissioner Brian
Owens, stating amongst other statements, that [w]e have reached out to the
[sic] Warden Humphries, Mrs. Bishop, the Ombudsman, and your office
with no avail. This letter indicates that Defendant Humphrey knew Mrs.
Jackson had complained about conditions before he permanently deprived
her of any opportunity to visit her husband. Defendants Humphrey and Ward
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 12 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
13/21
13
also knew about the letter wrote to the DOCs Commissionerbefore they
permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband.
C. Permanent Revocation Of Mrs. Jacksons Ability To SeeHer Husband
20.
Mrs. Jackson received a letter (dated July 19, 2012) from Defendant
Humphrey expressly stating that Defendant Humphrey has permanently
removed Mrs. Jackson from her husbands visitation list. This means Mrs.
Jackson can never visit her husband again.
21.
Defendants Humphrey and Ward were able to revoke Mrs. Jacksons
ability to see her husband because a special relationship exist between
Defendants Humphrey and Ward, and all approved visitors on an inmates
visitation list.
22.
Permanently revoking Mrs. Jacksonsability to visit her husband
serves no constitutionally recognized penological interest under the facts of
this case. The revocation is not tied to valid security reasons or economic
reasons, evidenced by the letter. Defendants Humphrey and Ward violated
the law by not stating in writing a reason for Mrs. Jacksons termination or a
length of time the termination shall entail, a failure that further supports the
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 13 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
14/21
14
assertion that no valid, lawful reason existed. Defendants Humphrey and
Ward retaliated against Mrs. Jackson in violation of her clearly established
constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
23.
On July 18, 2012, Defendant Timothy Ward made the final decision
to terminate Mrs. Jacksons visitation.
24.
Defendant Ward punished Mrs. Jackson because she demanded a sit down
with the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. Defendant Ward
punished Mrs. Jackson for excessing her First Amendment Rights, by
terminating her visitation because Mrs. Jackson helped organize groups to
lead peaceful protests.
25.
Through intelligence reports, newspaper articles, and video footage,
Defendant Ward targeted Mrs. Jackson as a leader and organizer of protest
that highlighted perceived unconstitutional conduct of DOC officials and
thus retaliated against her by going beyond suspending her visitation, to
terminating her visitation.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 14 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
15/21
15
26.
When Defendant Ward terminated Mrs. Jacksons visitation, he knew
Mrs. Jackson could not visit her husband because her visitation had already
been taken away (suspended). Defendant Ward retaliated against Mrs.
Jackson a mere two days after she protested in front of the Department of
CorrectionsHeadquarters in Forsyth, Georgia, and Defendant Ward knew
Mrs. Jackson was present at the July 16, 2012 protest in front of DOC
Headquarters. Defendant Ward also punished Mrs. Jackson by terminating
her visitation just one day after Mrs. Jackson wrote the Commissioner a
letter requesting a sit downDefendant Ward knew about this letter before
terminating Mrs. Jacksons visitation.
COUNT ONE
42U.S.C.1983VIOLATIONOFFOURTEENTHANDFIRST
AMENDMENTRIGHTTOFREESPEECHANDEXPRESSION
(Against All Defendants)
27.
Mrs. Jackson now fully incorporates paragraphs 5-26, as if each were
set forth verbatim herein, and any other paragraph this Court may deem
applicable.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 15 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
16/21
16
28.
Based on the facts incorporated to support this Count and all facts
expressly stated within this Count, Defendant Humphrey violated Mrs.
JacksonsFirst Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression by
abusing his public authority to revoke Mrs. Jacksons ability to ever visit her
husband because Mrs. Jackson legally protestedboth physically and
verballyabout Defendant Humphreysperceived unconstitutional
treatment of her husband and other inmates under Defendant Humphreys
supervision. The U.S. Constitution protects the speech and expression Mrs.
Jackson engaged in, because long before Defendants unconstitutionally
retaliated against Mrs. Jackson, case law clearly established that U.S.
Citizens may peacefully protest on public grounds and make statements to
the media about perceived unconstitutional conduct of public officials,
without being retaliated against.
29.
Based on the facts incorporated to support this Count and all facts
expressly stated within this Count, Defendant Ward violated Mrs. Jacksons
First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression by abusing
his public authority to revoke Mrs. Jacksons ability to ever visit her
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 16 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
17/21
17
husband because Mrs. Jackson organized and led protest, and demanded a sit
down with Commissioner Brian Owens.
30.
Defendants Humphrey and Wards conduct chilled (actually frozen)
Mrs. Jacksons desire to publicly protest the perceived unconstitutional
conduct of Defendant Humphrey and officials under his command,
evidenced by Mrs. Jackson and other advocates cancelling their plan to
protest again in front of DOC headquarters after those protesters found out
that Mrs. Jackson had her ability to visit her husband terminated,
permanently. The subject protesters and Mrs. Jackson cancelled their protest,
because they feared Defendant Humphrey would further retaliate against
Mrs. Jackson and also against her husbands mother by revoking mommas
ability to visit her son (Mrs. Jacksons husband).Mrs. Jackson is afraid to
participate in any protest because she is afraid that Defendants Humphrey
and now Defendant Ward will take visitation away from her mother-in-law,
because they have already taken visitation away from another inmates
mother, due to that inmate speaking to Mrs. Jacksons attorney about not
receiving required baths.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 17 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
18/21
18
31.
Defendant Humphrey and Wards unconstitutional retaliation of
permanently enjoining Mrs. Jackson from ever seeing her husband has
caused Mrs. Jackson serious emotional damage.
COUNT TWO
DAMAGES(Against All Defendants)
Because Defendants unconstitutional conduct caused severe
emotional injury to Mrs. Jackson, she is entitled to all compensatory, special
and general damages permitted under controlling law.
COUNT THREE
PUNITIVE DAMAGES(Against All Defendants)
Because Defendants unconstitutional conduct caused severe
emotional injury to Mrs. Jackson, and the egregious abuse of public
entrusted authority, Mrs. Jackson is entitled to punitive damages to be
determined by a jury.
COUNT FOUR
ATTORNEYS FEES(Against All Defendants)
Due to Defendants bad faith, Mrs. Jackson asks this Court to grant
attorney fees if Mrs. Jackson prevails on any of her claims.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 18 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
19/21
19
CONCLUSION
The evidence indicates that Mrs. Jackson is not complaining about a
trivial matter. Her peaceful protests and statements to the press are
substantiated complaints regarding the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens.
Defendants Humphrey and Ward took exception to Mrs. Jackson exercising
her constitutional rights, so they abused their power and thus violated Mrs.
Jacksonsright to freely (and legally) criticize Defendants Humphreys
conduct as a public official and the conduct of public officials under his and
Defendant Tim Wards command.
WHEREFORE, Mrs. Jackson prays the following relief:
1. Mrs. Jackson seeks an amount including all damages from theDefendants;
2. That Mrs. Jackson have a trial by jury on all matter notadjudicated by this Court;
3. That this Court enter judgment in favor of Mrs. Jackson in anamount allowable by law that compensates Mrs. Jackson for all
prayed for damages, including special and general damages,
together with prejudgment interest;
4. That Mrs. Jackson recover reasonable attorney fees and costs inan amount to be determined by this Court;
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 19 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
20/21
20
5. That Mrs. Jackson be awarded exemplary damages based on theenlightened consciousness of the jury for the willful and wanton
acts of the all Defendants; and
6. That Mrs. Jackson recover such other, further, and differentrelief this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted this 26thday of March 2013,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario WilliamsGA No. 235254
Williams Oinonen LLCThe Historic Grant Building, Suite 200
44 Broad Street, NWAtlanta, Georgia 30303
Telephone (404) 654.0288
Facsimile (404) 592.6225
Counsel for Mrs. Jackson
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 20 of 21
-
8/12/2019 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson
21/21
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served a copy of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint on
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send
email notification to the following attorneys of record:
Susan L. Rutherford, EsqElizabeth Crowder, Esq
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Respectfully submitted this 26thday of March 2013,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS
Mario WilliamsGA Bar No. 235254
WILLIAMS OINONEN, LLC
The Historic Grant Building
44 Broad Street, NW
Suite 200Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: 404-654-0288Fax: 404-592-6225
Counsel for Mrs. Jackson
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 21 of 21
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]