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 Ward and 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 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 permanently terminated 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 3
medical conditions that officials under Defendant Humphreys supervision and control know need to be treated. JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, and 1343. VENUE 2. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and L.R. 3.4, because the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs claims arose in this district. PARTIES A. Plaintiff 3. At all relevant times to this complaint, Mrs. Jackson was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia. She submits herself to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and is entitled to bring this action under Georgia and federal law for all general, special, compensatory, punitive and permissible damages.
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 21 4
4. At all relevant times, Mrs. Jackson had legal rights established by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Georgia, and laws set forth by federal and state statutes. B. Defendants 5. On July 19, 2012 Defendant Humphrey permanently terminated the visitation rights of Mrs. Jackson. This termination of rights came a few days after Mrs. Jackson protested in front of DOC Headquarters about the unconstitutional treatment that her husband and others are receiving from Defendant Humphrey and other officials under Defendant Humphreys command. Defendant Humphrey also violated Mrs. Jacksons constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression after the Atlanta Journal Constitution published statements by Mrs. Jackson, statements that criticized Defendant Humphreys conduct towards her husband and other inmates participating in the subject hunger strike. Notably, prior to permanently revoking Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband, Defendant Humphrey retaliated against Mrs. Jackson (and her husband) by suspending Mrs. Jacksons visitation privileges mere hours after Mrs. Jacksons attorney visited her husband to inquire about the subject Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 4 of 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 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 Corrections Headquarters 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 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 Food
7. 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
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 DOCs quoted Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 8 of 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 checklist used 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 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 Rights 14. 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 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. Jacksons published 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 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 leader of the July 9, 2012 strike in front of the State Capitol and also is quoted as alleging that the DOC was being deceptive about 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 13
also knew about the letter wrote to the DOCs Commissioner before they permanently revoked Mrs. Jacksons ability to visit her husband. C. Permanent Revocation Of Mrs. Jacksons Ability To See Her 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. Jacksons ability 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 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 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 Corrections Headquarters 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
42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION (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 16
28. Based on the facts incorporated to support this Count and all facts expressly stated within this Count, Defendant Humphrey 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 husband because Mrs. Jackson legally protestedboth physically and verballyabout Defendant Humphreys perceived 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 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 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 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. Jacksons right 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 the Defendants; 2. That Mrs. Jackson have a trial by jury on all matter not adjudicated by this Court; 3. That this Court enter judgment in favor of Mrs. Jackson in an amount 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 in an amount to be determined by this Court; Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 19 of 21 20
5. That Mrs. Jackson be awarded exemplary damages based on the enlightened consciousness of the jury for the willful and wanton acts of the all Defendants; and 6. That Mrs. Jackson recover such other, further, and different relief this Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted this 26 th day of March 2013,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS Mario Williams GA No. 235254
Williams Oinonen LLC The Historic Grant Building, Suite 200 44 Broad Street, NW Atlanta, 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 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, Esq Elizabeth Crowder, Esq 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Respectfully submitted this 26 th day of March 2013,
s/MARIO WILLIAMS Mario Williams GA Bar No. 235254
WILLIAMS OINONEN, LLC The Historic Grant Building 44 Broad Street, NW Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: 404-654-0288 Fax: 404-592-6225 mario@goodgeorgialawyer.com
Counsel for Mrs. Jackson
Case 5:12-cv-00301-MTT Document 41 Filed 03/26/13 Page 21 of 21