Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lane v. Beavers

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

August 2, 2019

VINCENT LANE, Plaintiff,
C/O BEAVERS, et al., Defendants.

          Michael H. Watson, Judge



         Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, has filed a number of Motions that are presently before the Undersigned for consideration. His most substantive Motion is a Motion for Order of Protection, (Doc. 6), which the Court is construing as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. He has since filed 19 additional motions: five Motions that seem to seek immediate injunctive relief (Docs. 14, 20, 30, 31, 34); eight Motions for certain discovery (16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34); four Motions to file new evidence (Docs. 15, 33, 36, 37); a Motion for a private investigator (Doc. 19); and a Motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 29).

         For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 6, 14, 20, 30, 31, 34) be DENIED. Also, for the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's other Motions, (Docs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 2933, 34, 36, 37), are DENIED without prejudice.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, an inmate at Ross Correctional Institution (“RCI”), alleges that he and Defendant Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Beavers engaged in sexual acts “on a regular basis” in exchange for drugs and other contraband. (Doc. 5 at 3). According to his Complaint, on October 24, 2018, Defendant Beavers “ask me to allow him to do (oral) sex on me and he would bring me into the prison contraband items[.]” (Id.). At this point, Plaintiff alleges that he “no longer wanted to participate with him because he requested doing oral sex and repeatedly calling by the name of (big) daddy.” (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff immediately lodged an internal grievance against Defendant Beavers for “his constant romantic name calling, and his demands of sexual favors.” (Id. at 4).

         On October 25, 2018, Defendant Sexton called Plaintiff to his office to discuss these allegations. (Id., Doc. 26-1, ¶ 12). The parties each have their own version of what transpired at this meeting. According to Plaintiff, after confirming that he had filed a complaint against Defendant Beavers, Defendant Sexton ordered Plaintiff handcuffed and moved to segregation. (Doc. 5 at 4). But according to Defendant Sexton, when asked if he had any further information about his allegations against Defendant Beavers, Plaintiff “immediately became verbally aggressive, rude, and disrespectful, ” and as a result, “was placed in restrictive housing for his actions.” (Doc. 26-1, ¶ 12). Consequently, Defendant Sexton filed a conduct report against Plaintiff. (Doc. 35-6 at 8). Plaintiff claims that this report is inaccurate and was filed in retaliation. (Doc. 5 at 4).

         The next day, on October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) complaint against Defendant Beavers. (Doc. 26-2). RCI officials investigated Plaintiff's complaint and questioned staff members. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff, however, “failed to further cooperate with the investigation stating that he would not be further questioned without an Attorney present throughout the remainder of the investigation” and also “refused to be seen, evaluated, or counseled” by mental health or victim support services. (Id.).

         While the investigation was ongoing, Plaintiff also filed an internal complaint against Defendant C/O Farmer for retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Farmer told him to “drop” his complaint against Defendant Beavers and cursed at him because “he filed a PREA on my best friend.”[1] (Doc. 5 at 4-5). According to the PREA report, RCI officials questioned Defendant Farmer about Plaintiffs allegations and explained to him the PREA policy regarding retaliation. (Doc. 26-2 at 1). “Officer Farmer assured [the investigator] that he understood and [the investigator] did not, and has not heard anything further pertaining to Officer Farmer from inmate Lane.” (Id.).

         On March 18, 2019, RCI investigators closed the PREA investigation and concluded that Plaintiffs claims were “unfounded due to the lack of evidence and the continuous lack of cooperation involving the case.” (Id.). The report concluded:

Inmate Lane was transferred to RCI due to being charged for making weapons out of an issued knee brace. Inmate lane has been requesting and doing anything he can to be transferred from RCI to any Institution in the north. He is not suitable for transfer due to his Rules Infraction Board history (RIB).
Just recently while performing unit rounds, inmate Lane assured Mr. Diehl that he would continue filing complaints until he is transferred back to the north, closer to home.

(Id. . at 2).

         On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court against Defendants Beavers, Farmer, and Sexton. (Doc. 5). He does not seek damages but seeks the following injunctive relief:

• for the Court to “grant [him] a federal order of protection against both c/o Farmer and Beavers”; and
• that the Court “not allow for [him] to be placed in segregation by this prison for any reason that's directly due to the PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act] that [he] [] filed on C/O Beavers, the informal complaints and grievances that [he] [] filed on staff members Farmer and Sexton.”

(Id. . at 6).

         The day after Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed a Motion for Order of Protection and Protection Against Being Placed in Segregation by Plaintiff Vincent Lane. (Doc. 6). Because Plaintiffs Motion seeks immediate injunctive relief during the pendency of his lawsuit, the Court construes it as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

         In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks slightly wider injunctive relief than in his Complaint. He requests that the Court: (1) “grant an order of protection against C/O Beavers, C/O Farmer and Lieutenant Sexton”; (2) enjoin RCI officials from placing Plaintiff in segregation; and (3) prevent ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.