Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson

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


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



3/21


4/21


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



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,



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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;



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



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

[email protected]

Counsel for Mrs. Jackson

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Jackson