Free Amended Complaint - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Attorney At Law 45 West Jefferson, Suite 803 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2317 State Bar No. 002224 Office: (602) 258-4545 Attorneys for Plaintiff

ROBERT L. STORRS, P.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 1. Mark E. Hampton, Plaintiff, vs.
2. Charles Ryan, in his individual and official capacity as Acting Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections; 3. Conrad Luna, in his individual and official capacity as Deputy Warden of Arizona Department of Corrections SMU II; and 4. Barbara Shearer, in her individual and official capacity as an Arizona Department of Corrections Corrections Officer III, Classification Officer at SMU II,

No. 03-CV-1706 PHX NVW AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants. Plaintiff Mark E. Hampton, through counsel, hereby submits his first amended complaint against Defendants, as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Mark E. Hampton is an individual, currently incarcerated within

the Arizona Department of Corrections, assigned to the Arizona Department of Corrections, Special Management Unit II ("SMU II").

-1-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2.

Defendant Charles Ryan was, at the time of at least some of the incidents at

issue in this matter, the Acting Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. He is named in this complaint in both his individual and official capacities as Acting Director. Dora Schriro is the current director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. 3. Defendant Conrad Luna was, at the time of at least some of the incidents at

issue in this matter, and is, the Deputy Warden of SMU II at the Arizona Department of Corrections. He is named in this complaint in both his individual and official capacities. 4. Defendant Barbara Shearer was, at the time of at least some of the incidents

at issue in this matter, and is, a Corrections Officer III, Classification Officer, at the Arizona Department of Corrections, SMU II. She is named in this complaint in both her individual and official capacities. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42

U.S.C. § 1983. As such, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 6. Defendants are residents of the State of Arizona. The acts complained of in

this complaint occurred within the State of Arizona. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Mr. Hampton was remanded to the custody of the Arizona Department of

Corrections on or about August 6, 1985. He is serving a life sentence, but is (or should be) eligible for parole following his 25th year of custody. 8. Mr. Hampton has not been a security threat or risk during his confinement

within the Arizona Department of Corrections. He has only three violations of any note,

-2-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 2 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

two of which occurred nearly twenty (20) years ago. He has not been involved in any acts of violence during his period of incarceration. 9. Mr. Hampton is not, and has never been, a member of any prison-related

gang or other group now known as a "Security Threat Group" ("STG"), during his confinement within the Arizona Department of Corrections. 10. Prior to the fall of 1998, during nearly fourteen years of incarceration, Mr.

Hampton was housed in high medium to low medium security institutions within the Department of Corrections, and was never classified as a security risk. 11. On or about August 31, 1995, Samuel Lewis, the director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections at the time, declared the Aryan Brotherhood to be an STG. The notice provided that "[e]ffective thirty days from this date [August 31, 1995], any inmate who exhibits any prohibited behavior, any activity or identification with the Aryan Brotherhood shall be subject to management sanctions. . . ." 12. Over three years later, in the fall of October 1998, Defendants charged Mr. The

Hampton with being a member of an STG, namely, the Aryan Brotherhood. "evidence" against Mr. Hampton consisted primarily of (1) A photograph of Mr. Hampton, along with other workers at a prison rodeo, which allegedly included members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Notably, this photograph was taken prior to the August 31, 1995, directive of Samuel Lewis. A list of alleged "members" of the Aryan Brotherhood, found in the possession of another inmate, and not authored by Mr. Hampton. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Hampton was even aware of such a list. Statements by corrections officers that Mr. Hampton had been seen "associating," on perhaps two occasions, with members of the Aryan Brotherhood during social activities such as eating. These brief associations occurred prior to the August 31, 1995, directive by Samuel Lewis.
-3-

(2)

(3)

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 3 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

13.

Relying solely on this evidence, in the fall of 1998, Defendants validated

Mr. Hampton as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, an STG. As a result, he was immediately transferred to a high security institution. 14. Mr. Hampton was given little opportunity to rebut the alleged evidence

against him, or otherwise prepare a case in his defense. 15. In February of 1999, Mr. Hampton was transferred to SMU II, a "super

max" prison. The conditions at SMU II include (but are not limited to) the following: Virtually complete isolation. Inmates in SMU II are not able to socialize with other prisoners, have very limited telephone privileges, and equally limited visitation with members of the general public. Moreover, such visits occur only through layers of protective glass, and are only permitted for short periods of time. In short, Mr. Hampton's sole human contact within SMU II is with ADOC staff. Constant lighting. The lights within the cells at SMU II cannot be turned off by inmates, and are not turned off by staff, day or night. Limited recreation or exercise opportunities. Inmates within SMU II are not permitted outside for any circumstance (other than for court appearances), and have only limited time, alone, in a small exercise room (sans equipment). SMU II inmates' sole contact with the sun is an occasional glimpse through a skylight. Denial of food. SMU II inmates are placed on a special, low calorie diet. They are not permitted to supplement their diet with purchases from the inmate store, a privilege available to inmates within the general population. Other privileges. SMU II inmates are denied many of the other basic privileges, including rehabilitational opportunities, classes, vocational programs, and other activities, that are available to inmates in general population.

-4-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 4 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Hygiene and other preventative care. SMU II are permitted to shower only three times per week. During the winter months, temperatures in SMU II are quite cold, but inmates are denied cold weather clothing. SMU II inmates are denied the right to purchase basic over-the-counter medications. Restricted personal liberties. SMU II inmates are even restricted in how they spend their time alone. They are permitted access to few books, magazines, newspapers, or the like. They are not permitted to purchase other recreational items, such as playing cards, from the inmate store. Humiliating treatment. Following any court appearance, an SMU II inmate must defecate in the presence of ADOC staff at least three times prior to being allowed back into his cell, confined in a 3' x 4' cell during this time. SMU II inmates are also excessively shackled during any outside court appearance, with basic movements limited, far beyond security measures used for general population inmates. 16. 17. Notably, the conditions in SMU II have continually deteriorated since Medical care is also limited and woefully inadequate in SMU II. For

SMU II was first opened in 1996. example, since Mr. Hampton has been placed in SMU II, he has experienced chronic back pain, resulting in degenerative changes in both lumber and thoracic spine. He has not received treatment for this pain or its causes. He has multiple hernias, which remain untreated. Mr. Hampton has been advised that treatment is only possible if he is placed in general population. 18. Mr. Hampton has also experienced chronic abdominal pain for years, Rather, an ADOC official indicated that Mr. Hampton may be coupled within extensive weight loss. Again, Mr. Hampton has not been seen or treated for this condition. 19. "bulimic" or "anorexic." Mr. Hampton remains confined in SMU II without any meaningful Among other things, ADOC regulations opportunity for review or reclassification.
-5-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 5 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

provides that a "validated STG member" who "refuse[s] to renounce [membership]" shall be "[i]neligible for subsequent [classification] score reductions." They are similarly ineligible for parole. In short, unless Mr. Hampton admits to STG membership (despite the inaccuracy of the claim), and then renounces his prior non-existent membership, he can never leave SMU II. 20. Even if Mr. Hampton should choose to "renounce" his non-existent membership in an STG, he would then be required to "debrief," which requires him to "[p]rovide additional information regarding the STG's structure, activity and membership that would adversely impact the STG and assist in management of the STG population."1 21. The periodic review process for inmates sent to SMU II occur at most annually, and then subject to very limited review and oversight. The annual review process is little more than a cursory rubberstamp of the earlier classification process. 22. Moreover, because "debriefing" is the part of the only process, procedurally or practically, that an inmate can transfer out of SMU II, the inmate thereafter risks being classified as a "snitch" by other inmates, with the attendant risks that a snitch label carries. As a result, Defendants have created a scenario where there is no meaningful option to the draconian conditions within SMU II. 23. (25) years. As long as Mr. Hampton remains confined within SMU II, he is not eligible for consideration for parole, despite his statutory eligibility within twenty-five

The potential for abuse in this process is self-evident. Obviously, an inmate would is wrongfully sent to SMU II as an STG member must provide information on the STG in order to gain release from SMU II. Since the non-member presumably does not have such information, the non-member may make up information, including identifying other non-member inmates as actual members. These inmates, in turn, are then "validated" as STG members, and the cycle continues.
1

-6-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 6 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count One Denial of Due Process 24. 25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though Mr. Hampton has a protected property and liberty interest in his fully plead herein. classification within the Arizona Department of Corrections. He also has a protective liberty interest in the right to seek parole when statutorily eligible. 26. The procedures by which Mr. Hampton was classified as a member of a Security Threat Group and transferred to SMU II violated Mr. Hampton's due process rights, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 27. In addition, the procedures by which Mr. Hampton's continued confinement and review regarding his security classification and assignment to SMU II have violated, and continue to violate, Mr. Hampton's due process rights. 28. In addition, the sole relief provided by the review procedures, requiring, among other things, that an inmate "debrief" and thereby be labeled as a snitch, violates both Mr. Hampton's substantive and procedural due process rights. 29. The very conditions of confinement within the SMU II violate Mr. Hampton's substantive due process rights, conditions which have progressively worsened since the Arizona Department of Corrections first began operating SMU II in 1996. 30. Mr. Hampton has exhausted all administrative remedies with respect to his classification as a member of an STG, the policies for continued confinement in SMU II, and the conditions of confinement within SMU II. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mark E. Hampton respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:
-7-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 7 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

A.

A declaration that the procedures by which he was found to be a member

of a Security Threat Group violate due process, that the procedures regarding Mr. Hampton's continued and indefinite confinement violate due process, and that the very conditions of confinement violate due process. B. An injunction precluding future violations of due process and ordering appropriate policies and procedures in accordance with the due process clause of the United States Constitution. C. D. E. F. G. An order releasing Mr. Hampton from confinement within SMU II. General and special damages to the extent permitted by law. Pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law. Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. § 1988 and otherwise as Such other relief as deemed appropriate and necessary by this Court. Count Two Cruel and Unusual Punishment 31. 32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as though The terms and conditions of confinement within SMU II are cruel and fully plead herein. unusual, prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 33. Moreover, Defendants' denial of medical care to Mr. Hampton, due in part or in whole to his confinement within SMU II, constitutes deliberate indifference to his reasonable medical needs, in further violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 34. The denial of such other basic necessities, such as an adequate diet or winter clothing, further reflect Defendants' deliberate indifference to Mr. Hampton's reasonable needs and necessities, in further violation of the Cruel and Unusual
-8-

permitted by law, and

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 8 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Punishment Clause of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 35. Mr. Hampton has exhausted all administrative remedies with respect to the conditions of confinement within SMU II and denial of medical care and basic necessities within SMU II. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mark E. Hampton respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows: A. A declaration that the terms and conditions within SMU II, the denial of adequate medical care, and the denial of other basic necessities of life, violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. B. C. D. E. F. G. An injunction precluding future violations of the Cruel and Unusual An order releasing Mr. Hampton from confinement within SMU II or, General and special damages to the extent permitted by law. Pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law. Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. § 1988 and otherwise as Such other relief as deemed appropriate and necessary by this Court. Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. alternatively, ordering reasonable medical care and provision of basic necessities of life.

permitted by law, and RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of October, 2005. ROBERT L. STORRS, P.C. By s/Robert L. Storrs Robert L. Storrs, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff

-9-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 9 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ORIGINAL of the foregoing e-filed this 12th day of October, 2005 with Clerk of the Court United States District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPY of the foregoing Mailed this 12th day of October, 2005 to: Honorable Virginia Mathis United States District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COPY of the foregoing Mailed this 5th day of October, 2005 to: Susanne Pineda-Rodriguez Office of the Attorney General 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 And a COPY of the foregoing Mailed and E-mailed this 12th day of October, 2005 to: Catherine M. Bohland Assistant Attorney General Liability Management Section 1275 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 By s/Robert L. Storrs
-10-

Case 2:03-cv-01706-NVW

Document 51

Filed 10/12/2005

Page 10 of 10