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.

Hampton v. Defendant One

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro

March 28, 2018

QUINTON HAMPTON, PLAINTIFF
v.
DEFENDANT ONE et al., DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiff Quinton Hampton filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss some of Plaintiff's claims and allow other claims to proceed for further development.

         I.

         Plaintiff is a convicted inmate at the Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC). He names the following Defendants: “Defendant One (Name unknown to Plaintiff), ” identified by Plaintiff as a GRCC correctional officer; Adam Loney, identified as a sergeant at GRCC; Ron Beck, identified as a GRCC Deputy Warden; and DeEdra Hart, identified as the GRCC Warden. He sues each Defendant in his or her individual capacity.

         Plaintiff reports that he was housed in a restricted housing unit in GRCC. He states that on July 5, 2017, he was scheduled to take a shower and that Defendant One bound him in wrist and ankle restraints to escort him to the shower. He maintains that after he finished showering, Defendant One brought him prison-issued clothing. He states, “Plaintiff observed the clothing and noticed an unidentified stain on the boxers/underwear he was given; upon Plaintiff's assumption, Plaintiff believed the stain to be dried blood.” Plaintiff asserts that he “informed Defendant One of the stain and requested to exchange such boxers to a clean pair[]” and that Defendant One “ignored the Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to put the stained boxers on anyway.” Plaintiff states that Defendant One bound him in wrist and ankle restraints and escorted him back to his cell. Plaintiff further asserts the following:

While being escorted, the Plaintiff inquired about why he was given a pair of blood-stained boxers. Plaintiff again requested a clean pair of boxers. . . . Defendant One grabbed the Plaintiff's left buttock maliciously and sadistically while saying in a low tone of voice, “Give them to me then, Mother ******(word omitted), You look better without them!”

(alteration by Plaintiff).

         Plaintiff maintains that he reported this incident to Defendant Loney, “who assured the Plaintiff that the incident would be thoroughly investigated.” Plaintiff states that on July 7, 2017, “Defendant Loney initiated a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff filed a fallacious PREA.” He reports that on August 22, 2017, he “was convicted of Tampering with Physical Evidence or Hindering Investigation pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policies and Procedures 15.2 at a prison disciplinary hearing.” Plaintiff states that as a result of the disciplinary conviction he was given 30 days disciplinary segregation, suspended for 90 days, and had 60 days of good-time credit forfeited. He states that on September 6, 2017, the Warden concurred with the conviction.

         Plaintiff further states that on October 3, 2017, he submitted an open records request for the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq., report that he filed on July 5, 2017. According to Plaintiff, he received a memorandum in response informing him that “his request was denied due to ‘A PREA Report From Incident on 7/5/17 does not exist. No report exists for the date requested. Therefore, your request[] is denied.'”

         Plaintiff alleges, “Defendant One's action against the Plaintiff violated [his] Eighth Amendment right against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Under the PREA act, no inmate is to be subjected to any sexual act as apart of their criminal punishment.” He further states, “Defendant Loney being the PREA investigator and Defendant Beck and Defendant Hart being the deputy warden and warden having the Plaintiff in their custody acted deliberately indifferent to the PREA act by not acting to properly investigate the incident and correct the action of Defendant One.” He states that he “was sexually and verbally assaulted with emotional injuries.”

         In addition, Plaintiff alleges, “Defendant Loney's action of initiating a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and the Defendant Beck and Defendant Hart concurring in this action violated the Plaintiff's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.” He continues, “As a result, the Plaintiff was punished with segregation and a loss of good time extending the Plaintiff's sentence and the Plaintiff's first amendment right to speech is threatened from future use through fear of retaliation as not to file grievances or PREA complaints.”

         Included in the attachments to the complaint are Plaintiff's July 7, 2017, disciplinary report and hearing and appeal forms from the August 22, 2017, disciplinary hearing. In Plaintiff's appeal, Plaintiff maintained that the conviction should be overturned because the hearing officer did not view camera footage of the incident, which Plaintiff had requested and which Plaintiff suggested would have proven that the incident occurred.

         As relief, Plaintiff requests the Court to declare that Defendant One violated his Eighth Amendment rights when he “sexually and verbally assaulted the Plaintiff”; declare that Defendant Loney violated his Eighth Amendment rights when he “failed to properly investigate the PREA incident and take proper action thereafter”; declare that Defendants Beck and Hart violated his Eighth Amendment rights “when having the Plaintiff in their custody failed to protect the Plaintiff from PREA acts done by KDOC employees”; declare that Defendant Loney violated his First Amendment right against retaliation by “initiating a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for filing a PREA report”; and declare that Defendants Beck and Hart violated his First Amendment right against ...


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.