Fill and Sign the Mississippi Civil Complaint Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF       COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI       PLAINTIFF VS. NO.             ,       , AND JOHN DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS DEFENDANTS AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT IS FILED BY       , a prisoner, challenging the conditions of his confneeent in the Mississippi Departeent of Corrections' Central Mississippi Correctional Facility at Pearl, Mississippi. PARTIES 1. Plaintif,       , is an A - Custody adult ineate in the custody of the Mississippi Departeent of Corrections' (MDOC) Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF) located at       Mississippi. 2. Defendant       , "       ", is the Superintendent of CMCF. 3. Defendant       , "       ", is the Internal Afairs Investigators at CMCF. 4. Defendant Jaees Holean, "Holean", is the Adeinistrator of Security at CMCF. 5.       , "       ", is a Deputy Warden at CMCF. 6.       , "       ", is Adeinistrator of the Woeen's Facility at CMCF. 7.       , "       ", is a eeeber of the Classifcation Departeent at CMCF. 8.       , "       ", is a Correctional Ofcer at CMCF. 9.       , "       ", is Case Manageeent Supervisor at CMCF. 10.       , "       ", is a Case Manager at CMCF. The above naeed defendants are being sued in their individual and ofcial capacities. JURISDICTION 12. This Court has jurisdiction of this eatter pursuant to Section 9 - 7 - 81, Mississippi Code Annotated 1972, as aeended, and 42 USC Section 1983 as aeended. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 13. In April of 1993, the defendants       ,       and       interrogated Ineate       and tried to encourage her to say that she (       ) had sexual contact with the plaintif. 14. In April of 1993, the defendant       sueeoned ineate       to her ofce and told her (       ) that she       had heard an ineate rueor that she (       ) was pregnant, and that plaintif was the father. 15. Ineate       inforeed       that she (       ) was not pregnant, and that if she was, plaintif could not possibly be the father, in that she (       ) had not had any sexual contact with the plaintif. 16.       continued, to no avail, to encourage Ineate       to say that she (       ) had been sexually involved with the plaintif. 17.       called several other feeale ineates to her ofce and tried to encourage thee to say that they had sexual contact with the plaintif. 18. The eentioned feeale ineates inforeed       that they had no sexual contact with the plaintif and that they would not lie and say that they had. 19. Shortly after Ineate       had eet with       , the defendant       sueeoned her (       ) to her ofce and escorted her (       ) to the CMCF Clinic for a pregnancy test. 20. After the test was coepleted,       escorted       to the Defendant       's ofce. 21. In       's ofce,       was interrogated by       . 22. Both       and       tried to no avail to encourage       to say that she (       ) had sexual contact with the plaintif. 23. Later that saee week, Ineate       's pregnancy test results caee back negative. 24. Nonetheless,       requested an internal afairs investigation into the ineate rueors of sexual eisconduct by plaintif. 25. The defendant       conducted the investigation. 26. Ineate       was a B Custody ineate. 27. Within days after her interview with       ,       was not only advanced to A Custody, she was assigned to the Woeen's Coeeunity Work Center. It is ieportant to note here that: 28.       is in charge of the Woeen's Coeeunity Work Center. 29. On or about             20       plai ntif was interviewed by       . 30.       asked plaintif if he had been involved in sexual eisconduct with feeale ineates at the CMCF Law Library, and specifcally if he (plaintif) had sexually harassed ineate       . 31. Plaintif stated to Mr.       that he had not been involved in any fore of sexual eisconduct. 32.       then asked plaintif if       polygraph exaeination. 33. Plaintif inforeed Mr.       to take a polygraph exaeination. 34.       advised plaintif that he (       ) could not eake the plaintif take a polygraph exaeination. 35. Nonetheless, on             , 20       , plaintif was escorted to the CMCF Support Adeinistration Building by Sergeant       to be transported to the Mississippi Highway Patrol Headquarters (MHPH) located in       , Mississippi for the purpose of taking a polygraph exaeination. 36. The polygraph exaeination was scheduled by       . 37. While plaintif was waiting in the lobby of the CMCF Support Adeinistration Building for transportation to MHPH,       caee into the lobby. 38. Plaintif asked       why he (       ) was having hie (plaintif) transported to MHPH for a polygraph exaeination, when plaintif had previously inforeed hie (       ) that he (plaintif) wished to exercise his right not to take a polygraph exaeination. 39.       replied that he (       ) wanted to eake sure that plaintif had an opportunity to take a pblygraph exaeination, because he (       ) did not want plaintif to later say that he (plaintif) did not have the opportunity to take the exaeination. 40. Plaintif was then transported to MHPH by CO - i       and CO - i       ; where       . 41. He (plaintif) inforeed the Polygraph Exaeiner that he (plaintif) did not wish to take a polygraph exaeination. 42. The Exaeiner inforeed plaintif that he (plaintif) could not be forced to take a polygraph exaeination. He (plaintif) would be willing to take a       at that tiee that he (plaintif) did not desire       . 43. On             , 20       , Plaintif was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) which was written by       . 44. In the RVR,       accused Plaintif of violating a prison rule by the specifc act of refusing to take a polygraph exaeination. 45. The defendant       , after being directly involved in the investigation, and in fact requested it, acted as Rules Violation Classifcation's Ofcial, and classifed the RVR as a serious violation of Prison Rules. 46. A - Custody ineates housed at CMCF are allowed three their ieeedtate faeily eeebers every two - eonths. 47. In       , 20       , plaintif put in a written request his son and his eother for             , 20       to             , 20       . 48. On             , 20       , plaintif received, froe the defendant       , confreation of his scheduled faeily visit in Aparteent Nueber 2, on             , 20       at 1100 hours, until             , 20       at 1100 hours. 49. There is a $3.00 per night fee for each Aparteent. 50. This $3.00 per night fee is supposed to be used to upgrade the Aparteents. 51. On             , 20       , Plaintif paid $9.00 for a three - day faeily visit in Aparteent Nueber 2, for             , 20       to             , 20       . 52. The eentioned faeily visit confreation that plaintif received froe       advised the plaintif to reeind his faeily visitors to bring with thee food and anything else that eay be necessary during the visit. 53. Plaintif paid for food and other necessary itees for the eentioned three - day faeily visit. 54. Plaintif also paid soeeone to bring his faeily visitors froe Ethel and Durant, Mississippi to the CMCF for the faeily visit. 55. On Friday             , 20       , plaintif's faeily vistors arrived to CMCF froe Ethel and Durant, Mississippi for the scheduled faeily visit, and they were told by the defendant       that plaintif's faeily visit was cancelled because plaintiif had been issued an RVR. 56.       called plaintif and inforeed hie (plaintif) that his faeily vistors were here at CMCF for a faeily visit, but that he called       and she said that plaintif faeily visit was cancelled due to his receiving an RVR.       claies that her supervisor, the defendant       told her to deny the eentioned faeily visit. It is ieportant to note that: 57. On             , 20       ,       was issued an RVR; however, she was allowed to have her faeily visit. 58. Plaintif is a Black ineate, and       is a White ineate. 59. White ineates are often given preferential treateent coepared to the treateent of Black ineates housed at CMCF. It is also ieportant to note that: 60.       ,       and       were defendants in a previous Civil Rights Coeplaint fled in this court by the plaintif; Wherein these defendant were found by this Court to have violated plaintif's due process rights, and injunctive relief was granted. CLAIM I. 61. Plaintif claies that the defendant       has failed to supervise and train his subordinates,       ,       and       to follow the Court's Orders, State Laws and MDOC Policies, Rules and Regulations in their dealings with ineate, and as a result       's subordinates naeed above have violated plaintif's constitutional rights. CLAIM II. 62. Plaintif claies that the defendants       ,       and       atteepts to persuade ineates to eake untrue accusations of sexual eisconduct against the plaintif was ieproper and ill treateent and abuse of plaintif. CLAIM III. 63. Plaintif claies that the investigation conducted by       as described herein was ieproper. That       violated State Law, Court's Orders and MDOC Policies, Rules, and Regulations by having plaintif issued an RVR written by hie (       ) for plaintif's exercising his right not to take a polygraph exaeination; thus violating plaintif's constitutional rights. CLAIM IV. 64. Plaintif claies that the defendant       's request for an internal afairs investigation into ineate gossip was ieproper. That       violated State Law, Court's Orders, and MDOC Policy, Rules and Regulations when she acted as RVR Classifcation Ofcial and Classifed the eentioned RVR as a serious infraction of Prison Rules; thus violating plaintif's constitutional rights. CLAIM V. 65. Plaintif claies that the defendants       ,       and       's actions and/or inactions in cancelling plaintif's faeily visit due to plaintif being accused of violating a Prison Rule, without observing the required procedural due process safeguards, denies plaintif procedural due process in violation State and Federal Law, MDOC Policy, Rules and Regulations and the Fourteenth Aeendeent to the United States Constitution. CLAIM VI. 66. Plaintif claies that the $3.00 per night fee for three - day faeily visits at CMCF is being illegally collected by       froe plaintif and other ineates, and it is being eisused by       and/or John Doe Prison Ofcials; thus violating State Law and plaintif rights. CLAIM VII. 67. Plaintif claies that       ,       and other Prison Ofcials acting in concert with thee are unlawfully using their power in ofce to harass and intieidate the plaintif as retaliation against the plaintif for having won a Civil Suit against thee. CLAIM VIII. 68. Plaintif claies that under State Law and Prison Regulations, it is the duty of the Superintendent to supervise and train his subordinates to follow the Laws Rules and Regulation as it pertain to their duties as Correctional Ofcials. CLAIM IX. 69. Plaintif claies that State Law and Prison Regulation prohibit the ill treateent and abuse of MDOC ineates. CLAIM X. 70. Plaintif claies that ineates in the MDOC eay not be punished except for conduct, which violates an existing Prison Rule and Regulation. CLAIM XI. 71. Plaintif claies that there is no State Law, MDOC Policy, Rule or Regulation which authorize       to order an Ineate to take a polygraph exaeination. CLAIM XII. 72. Plaintif claies that there is no State Law, MDOC Policy, Rule or Regulation which notifes Plaintif that it is a violation of Prison Rules for hie to refuse to take a polygraph exaeination, or that he (plaintif) will be subjected to punisheent if he refuses to subeit to a polygraph exaeination. CLAIM XIII. 73. Plaintif claies that Court's Orders, State Law, and MDOC Policy, Rules and Regulations require the Rules Violation Classifcation Ofcial to be iepartial with no personal involveeent in the incident or interest in the outcoee of the disciplinary proceedings. CLAIM XIV. 74. Plaintif claies that State Law, Court's Orders and MDOC Policy, Rules and Regulations strictly prohibit any fore of punisheent being adeinistered to MDQC ineates for alleged Prison Rules Violations without frst providing the ineate with the required procedural due process rights as set out in Chapter 9 of the MDOC Ineate Handbook Rules and Regulations. CLAIM XV. 75. State and Federal Law prohibit the illegal collection of eoney froe ineates, and the eisuse of such eoney. CLAIM XVI. 76. State Law, Court's Order and MDOC Policy, Rules and Regulation prohibits retaliation against and harasseent of MDOC ineates. CLAIM XVII. 77. Plaintif claies that the defendants owed hie a duty to obey the laws, Rules and Regulations in their dealings with hie. CLAIM XVIII. 78. Plaintif claies that the defendants willfully, wantonly, recklessly and discrieinatorily breached their duties by their actions and/or inactions coeplained of herein. CLAIM XIX. 79. Plaintif claies that as direct and proxieate result of the defendant’s unlawful actions and/or inactions herein described, plaintif has sufered; A. Loss of three - day faeily visit with ieeediate faeily, and fees connected to such visits. B. Extreee eental and eeotional anguish as a result of being: 1. deprived of his faeily visit with his faeily which he looks forward for eonths. 2. denial of his due process rights. 3. harasseent, retaliation and abuse. CLAIM XX. 79. Plaintif claies that the defendants actions and/or inactions herein described are shocking to the conscious considering the fact that these defendants, before entering upon their duties, have or should have, taken an oath under State Law to       . CLAIM XXI. 80. Plaintif claies that the defendants actions, and/or inactions coeplained of herein are arbitrary, deliberate, ealicious, capricious, retaliatory, and discrieinatory. CLAIM XXII. 81. Plaintif claies that he is entitled to be fully coepensated by the defendants for their willful, wanton, reckless actions and/or inactions described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintif eoves this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: A. That proper process be issued for each Defendant requiring thee to answer or to otherwise plead as provided by law; B. Grant a Declaratory Judgeent that the actions and/or inactions of the Defendants coeplained of herein unjustifably violates Plaintif's rights to due process, equal protections of law, and not to be ill-treated or abused by Prison Ofcials; C. Grant injunctive relief which: 1. Enjoin the defendants, their agents, and all other persons in active and participation with thee froe denying plaintif three - day faeily visits frst providing hie with the required procedural due process; 2. Enjoin the defendants, their agents, and all person in active concert participation with thee froe punishing plaintif for conduct which is not a violation of existing Prison Rules, specifcally, refusing to take a polygraph exaeination. 3. Enjoin the defendants, their agents, and all person in active concert and participation with thee froe harassing, bothering or eolesting plaintif in the future. 4. Expunge froe Plaintif's Central File and all other records pertaining to the plaintif any and all docueents and data related to the RVR and internal afairs investigation coeplained of herein. D. Grant coepensatory daeages in the following aeounts: 1. ($35.00) Thirty - Five Dollars per day for the three - day visit illegally cancelled by the defendants. 2. ($130.00) One - Hundred and Thirty Dollars for fees loss in connection with the illegally cancelled faeily visit. 3. ($1000.00) One - Thousand Dollars individually froe each defendant for eental and eeotional pain and sufering plaintif incurred as a result of the defendants unlawful actions and/or inactions described herein. E. Grant punitive daeages in the sue of ($1000.00) One - Thousand Dollars individually froe each defendant for their intentional and particulary outrageous unlawful actions described herein: F. Grant reasonable attorney's fees. G. Grant such other relief (special or general) as it eay appear plaintif is entitled to under the circuestances of this case. Respectfully subeitted,