JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Kateisa Green filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). She notified the Court of her release from custody on June 9, 2015 (Doc. No. 20). She alleges Defendants interfered with her First Amendment right to correspond with her mother, and seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 22-24). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion, and a Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 26-27).
Plaintiff claims that when she arrived at the ADC, she submitted a request to correspond by mail with her mother, who was incarcerated at the time at the Dub Brassell Detention Center (Jail). She received an answer from the Warden that the request was forwarded to the administrator of the Jail (Defendant Bolin). Plaintiff then mailed a letter to her mother, which was returned to her by Defendant Brawley, who was aware of the Plaintiff's relation to her mother. Defendant Tyler also denied and refused to allow correspondence by failing to respond to Plaintiff's request and by authorizing Brawley to deny the correspondence. Plaintiff then sent an inquiry about her correspondence request to the ADC Unit Warden, who indicated that the Jail had not responded. This denial caused Plaintiff extreme mental stress over wondering if her mother was receiving adequate medical care. Defendants also violated her right to communicate with her mother concerning their valid and open criminal/legal case.
Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's monetary claims against them in their official capacities should be dismissed. A suit against a county official in his official capacity is the equivalent of a suit against the county itself.
The Court disagrees, however, with Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's allegations should be dismissed because she did not file a Jail grievance about the issue. According to Defendants' submissions, Plaintiff and her mother, Ruthie Green, were incarcerated at the Jail in early 2014, and Plaintiff was transferred to the ADC about March 28, 2014 (Doc. No. 23-1). Plaintiff's mother was released from the Jail on July 10, 2014. (
In support of their Motion, Defendant Bolin states that he does not recall receiving a request from the ADC asking for approval for Plaintiff to correspond with her mother, and at the time, did not realize that the ADC permitted correspondence between some inmates. (Doc. No. 23-1) He has since received some of those correspondence requests from the ADC. (
Based on these undisputed facts, Defendants state that Plaintiff cannot support a constitutional claim against them. She was not incarcerated at the Jail at the time she made her request to the ADC on May 20, 2014, and does not dispute that at the time she mailed her letter to her mother at the Jail, her request with the ADC had not yet been approved. Defendants state that restrictions on inmate-to-inmate correspondence which are related to a legitimate government interest in preventing escape and reducing inmate violence do not constitute violations of the First Amendment, as set forth in
In response, Plaintiff states Defendant Bolin admits in his declaration that he lacked knowledge about facility-to-facility mail correspondence and if the Jail permits correspondence between inmates who are parent and child, the letter she wrote to her mother should not have been returned. She refers to an inmate request form she submitted at the ADC on May 20, 2014, and the Deputy Warden's response that her request to correspond was sent on 5-22-14. (Doc. No. 21) In addition, she refers to another request on June 30, 2014, asking about the status of her correspondence request, to which the Deputy Warden responded that approval had not yet been received. (
As stated in
In this particular case, the material facts are not disputed. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the ADC and submitted a request to correspond with her mother at the Jail on May 20, 2014. The request was submitted; however, it is not clear from the inmate request forms whether it was submitted for approval to ADC officials or to Dub Brassell Jail officials. (Doc. No. 21) In addition, Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant Bolin's statement that he does not recall receiving a correspondence request at the time, was not aware that the ADC permitted inmates to correspond, and had no reason to deny such a request on his end, given the Jail policy which permits related Jail inmates to correspond with each other. Plaintiff also does not dispute that the time period at issue involved four to six weeks, until her mother was released on July 14, 2014, or that only one letter was allegedly returned to her. Plaintiff does not challenge a Jail policy, per se, as the Jail's mail policy does not specifically cover correspondence between an inmate at another institution and an inmate at the Jail. Therefore, she appears to complain about an isolated incident. Based on all these undisputed facts, the Court finds no evidence that any of the three named Defendants were responsible for denying correspondence between Plaintiff and her mother, or intentionally prevented her from corresponding. As noted in
The Court also finds no evidence that Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the courts. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff refers to the fact that she and her mother were parties to a pending criminal case at the time. However, she does not allege that Defendants' actions resulted in an injury to her pending legal case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice.
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.