Jackson v. Elswick
3:20-cv-00864
S.D.W. VaAug 18, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Timothy S. Jackson, while incarcerated, worked on a WV Dept. of Highways (DOH) inmate road crew and fell on June 14, 2019; he alleges a preexisting ankle injury (plates/pins) caused a broken pin.
- After the fall Jackson sought medical care; DOH supervisor Mark Elswick reported complaints leading to a disciplinary charge by Kathy Smith for refusal to work; Hearing Officer Brian Greenwood found Jackson guilty and imposed sanctions and a transfer.
- Jackson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Elswick (DOH) and DCR employees Smith, Greenwood, and Jennifer Henderson, alleging Eighth Amendment, due process, ADA, and related claims; Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended summary judgment for defendants.
- Jackson raised new claims and asserted an intellectual disability/ADA claim for the first time in objections; he also contended he exhausted administrative remedies, was denied discovery, and was improperly denied medical care and adjudicatory rights.
- The district court reviewed objections de novo where appropriate, rejected newly raised arguments and unsubstantiated assertions, adopted the PF&R, and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Jackson says he tried to exhaust but transfers and disability impeded him | Jackson did not complete DCR grievance steps; no final administrative decision | Court: Jackson failed to exhaust; objection insufficiently supported; claim barred |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (work assignment) | Elswick knew of Jackson's ankle plates/pins and ordered dangerous hillside work causing injury | Elswick lacked subjective knowledge of an excessive risk; no medical restrictions or incidents in six months | Court: No evidence Elswick was deliberately indifferent; Eighth Amendment claim fails |
| ADA / intellectual disability | Jackson contends ADA protections apply and disability prevented proper exhaustion and compliance | ADA/disability raised first in objections and unsupported by record or prior pleadings | Court: ADA/disability issues waived/untimely and unsubstantiated; objection denied |
| Disciplinary charge / procedural due process | Jackson contends charge was false and he was denied right to call/cross-examine witnesses | Defendants: filing charge alone does not violate rights where inmate had hearing and appeal rights | Court: Even if charge was false, Jackson had opportunity to be heard; no constitutional violation |
| Denial/delay of medical care (Henderson) | Jackson says Henderson prevented timely follow-up appointment and withheld care for ankle and urinary issues | Defendants: delay was brief and did not amount to denial of serious medical need | Court: At most a delay in routine follow-up; no evidence of harm; claim fails |
| Wrongful termination / workers' compensation | Jackson says losing DOH job after injury and related statutes entitle him to relief | Defendants: inmates have no constitutional right to prison job; workers' comp statute inapplicable to DOH inmate work | Court: Termination not cognizable under § 1983; workers' comp claim inapplicable |
| Discovery complaint | Jackson says defendants failed to produce ordered discovery (videos, logs, policies) | Defendants produced what they had; Magistrate resolved motion to compel; Jackson did not specify policies sought | Court: Issue resolved by Magistrate; no specific PF&R error shown; objection denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (prisoners' Eighth Amendment medical claim standards; pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (Eighth Amendment objective component and "minimal civilized measure")
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective deliberate indifference standard requires actual knowledge of risk)
- Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1986) (filing false disciplinary charges alone not actionable if inmate afforded hearing)
- Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 1995) (no constitutional right to a prison job)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court not required to review de novo unobjected portions of magistrate report)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (district court may accept, reject, or modify magistrate recommendations)
- Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092 (4th Cir. 1997) (deliberate indifference requires actual awareness of condition or risk)
- Patel v. Moron, 987 F. Supp. 2d 389 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (reaffirming inmates lack a protected right to prison employment)
- Crawford v. W. Va. Dep't of Corr.-Work Release, 239 W. Va. 374 (2017) (workers' compensation provisions do not entitle inmates in certain work-release contexts to benefits)