Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
STATESBORO DIVISION

DARIUS ISHUN GREEN
Plaintiff,
V.
CHARLES CALHOUN BRAD WESTBERRY JOHN JORDAN WAYNE COOK CHRISTOPHER GAY MARK SMITH TERRY CALHOUN JERMAINE CALHOUN CYNTHIA CALHOUN JETTIE CALHOUN SHAWN CALHOUN BENJAMIN MOURAD BASAHAN MCINTOSH

CAFN: CV614H[03

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Plaintiff ("Green") files this Complaint for all permissible damages, by

using 42 §§ 1983 and 1988 as vehicles to vindicate Green's rights under the Eighth

Amendment and Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because Defendants

violated Green's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

To support this Complaint, Green alleges the following: 1

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 2 of 25
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Based on new knowledge, Green files this Complaint, which related to 6:14cv-46-BAE-GRS. On September 21, 2012, at the same time (4:30 a.m.), Tone Grubbs (a Defendant in 6:14-cv-46-BAE-GRS) admitted both Plaintiff and Darryl Ricard (Plaintiff's assailant) into protective custody, and when Green arrived to Green's protective custody cell, Ricard was waiting. Ricard raped Green, and the Defendants to this action all knew Ricard was going to rape (or at the very least, sexually assault) Green yet permitted Ricard to sexually assault Green.
JURISDICTION 1.
Jurisdiction is proper and based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343. VENUE 2.
Venue is proper and based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Also, the events or omissions related to Green's claims arose in Tattnall County, GA at Rogers State Prison. See L.R. 3.4.
PARTIES 3.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Green was a citizen of the United States, residing in Georgia. Green submits to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court; thus Green files this action under federal law for all general, special, compensatory, punitive, and any other permissible damages.
2

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 25
A. Defendants
Lieutenant Bashan McIntosh ("McIntosh') at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, McIntosh was on duty. During that time, McIntosh saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. McIntosh also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. McIntosh knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where McIntosh knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, McIntosh was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and McIntosh was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. McIntosh is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
3

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 4 of 25
5. Brad Westberry ("Westberry") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Westberry was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Westberry saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Westberry also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Westberry knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Westberry knew Ricard was not supposed to be. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Westberry was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Westberry was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court, as it applies to the U.S. Constitution with respect to transgender inmates. Westberry is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
ri
Benjamin Mourad ("Mourad") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012,
4

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 5 of 25
Mourad was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Mourad saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Mourad also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Mourad knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Mourad knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Mourad was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Mourad was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Mourad is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
'a
Charles Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Charles Calhoun was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Charles Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Charles Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be
5

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 6 of 25
there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Charles Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Charles Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Charles Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Charles Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Charles Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
Terry Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Terry Calhoun was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Terry Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Terry Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Terry Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Terry Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
ri

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 7 of 25
At all relevant to this Complaint, Terry Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Terry Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Terry Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
Jermaine Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Jermaine Calhoun was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Jermaine Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Jermaine Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Jermaine Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jermaine Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Jermaine Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Jermaine Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential
7

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 8 of 25
law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Jermaine Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
10. Cynthia Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Cynthia Calhoun was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. Cynthia Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Cynthia Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Cynthia Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Cynthia Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be. At all relevant to this Complaint, Cynthia Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Cynthia Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Cynthia Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
8

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 9 of 25
11. Shawn Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Shawn C1houn was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Shawn Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Shawn Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Shawn Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Shawn Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be. At all relevant to this Complaint, Shawn Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Shawn Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Shawn Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 10 of 25
12. Jettie Calhoun at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Jettie Calhoun was performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Jettie Calhoun saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Jettie Calhoun also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Jettie Calhoun knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jettie Calhoun knew Ricard was not supposed to be. At all relevant to this Complaint, Jettie Calhoun was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Jettie Calhoun was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Jettie Calhoun is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
13. John Jordan ("Jordan") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Jordan had
10

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 11 of 25
supervisory authority over personnel that were performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Jordan saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Jordan also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Jordan knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jordan knew Ricard was not supposed to be. Jordan agreed with his subordinates to permit Ricard to be in Green's cell where all Defendants knew Ricard was not supposed to be.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Jordan was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Jordan was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Jordan is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
14. Wayne Cook ("Cook") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Cook had supervisory authority over personnel that were performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Cook saw Ricard (Green's assailant)
11

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 12 of 25
in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Cook also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Cook knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jordan knew Ricard was not supposed to be. Cook agreed with his subordinates to permit Ricard to be in Green's cell where all Defendants knew Ricard was not supposed to be, and all Defendants knew Ricard would sexually assault Green.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Cook was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Cook was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Cook is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
15. Christopher Gay ("Gay") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Gay had supervisory authority over personnel that were performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Gay saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Gay also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not
12

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 13 of 25
supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Gay knew Ricard would sexually assault Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jordan knew Ricard was not supposed to be. Gay agreed with his subordinates to permit Ricard to be in Green's cell where all Defendants knew Ricard was not supposed to be, and all Defendants knew Ricard would sexually assault Green.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Gay was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Gay was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Gay is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
16. Mark Smith ("Smith") at all times relevant to this action was a correctional officer at Rogers State Prison who was also employed by GDC. While Green was in protective custody ("PC"), from September 21-22, 2012, Smith had supervisory authority over personnel that were performing security checks on and near Green's PC cell. During that time, Smith saw Ricard (Green's assailant) in Green's PC cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be in Green's cell. Smith also knew, at the time he saw Ricard in Green's cell and knew Ricard was not supposed to be there, that Ricard was a gang member and convicted rapist, child molester. Smith knew Ricard would sexually assault
13

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 14 of 25
Green and condoned that eventual sexual assault by permitting Ricard to be in Green's PC cell where Jordan knew Ricard was not supposed to be. Smith agreed with his subordinates to permit Ricard to be in Green's cell where all Defendants knew Ricard was not supposed to be, and all Defendants knew Ricard would sexually assault Green.
At all relevant to this Complaint, Smith was acting under color of law, and was responsible for knowing all relevant policies, procedures, rules, regulations of the DOC with respect to transgender inmates and vulnerable inmates, and Smith was also responsible for knowing all precedential law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, as that law applies to the U.S Constitution with respect to transgender and vulnerable inmates. Smith is being sued in his individual capacity and may be served at 1978 GA HWY 147, Reidsville, GA 30453.
RELEVANT FACTS 17.
Upon arrival at Rogers State Prison, and before Green was placed in general population, each Defendants named in this action knew Green was transgender.
Before Green was placed in general population at Rogers State Prison, Each Defendants knew Green had female body parts such as breast.
19. Before Green was placed in general population at Rogers State Prison, each Defendants knew Green was transgender.
14

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 15 of 25
20. At all relevant times to this Complaint, each Defendant knew that Rogers State Prison housed closed security inmates.
21 At all relevant times to this Complaint, each Defendant knew Rogers State prison housed convicted rapist in general population.
22. At all relevant times to this Complaint, each Defendants knew Rogers State Prison housed convicted murderers in general population.
23 At all relevant times to this Complaint, each Defendant knew Rogers State Prison housed sexual offenders.
24. At all relevant times to this Complaint, each Defendant knew Rogers State Prison housed convicted murderers and inmates convicted of felony crimes such aggravated battery and aggravated assault.
25. Each Defendant saw Ricard in Green's protective custody cell and permitted Ricard to stay in Green's protective custody cell while knowing that Ricard would sexually assault Green or at the very least attempt to sexually assault Green.
15

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 16 of 25
26.
At the time that each Defendant saw Ricard in Green's protective custody cell, each Defendant knew that Ricard was a convicted rapist.
27. At the time that each Defendant saw Ricard in Green's protective custody cell, each Defendant knew that Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
93 During the time that Ricard was in Green's protective custody cell, from September 212012, each knew Ricard was a convicted rapist.
29. During the time that Ricard was in protective custody cell, from September 212012, each knew Ricard had a higher security classification than Green minimum security classification.
30. During the time that Ricard protective custody cell, from September 21 2012, each knew Ricard was a convicted rapist.
31. Defendant Jordan agreed with all other Defendants (including his subordinates), and also with Tone Grubbs, to permit Ricard to be housed in Green's protective custody cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
16

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 17 of 25
32. Defendant Cook as a supervisor agreed with all other Defendants (including his subordinates), and also with Tone Grubbs, to permit Ricard to be housed in Green's protective custody cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
33. Defendant Gay as a supervisor agreed with all other Defendants (including his subordinates), and also with Tone Grubbs, to permit Ricard to be housed in Green's protective custody cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
34. Defendants Smith as a supervisor agreed with all other Defendants (including his subordinates), and also with Tone Grubbs, to permit Ricard to be housed in Green's protective custody cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
35. Defendants Mcintosh as a supervisor agreed with all other Defendants (including his subordinates), and also with Tone Grubbs, to permit Ricard to be housed in Green's protective custody cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell.
I1 From the time Green was placed in protective custody at Rogers State Prison on September 21, 2012 until Approximately 4 a.m. on September 22, 2012, no defendant took any action to remove Ricard from Green's cell, while
17

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 18 of 25
all Defendants knew Ricard was not authorized to be in Green's cell. 37.
Each Defendant knew that Green was not authorized to be in Green's subject protective custody cell.
M. Each Defendant knew, during the time that Green was in PC from September 21-22, that Green was transgender/transsexual.
39. Each Defendant knew, during the time that Green was in PC from September 21-22, that Green had breast.
Each Defendant knew, during the time that Green was in PC from September 21-22, that the reason Green had been placed in protective custody is because Green alleged fear for life.
COUNT I VIOLATION OF EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against All Defendants) Ip
Green re-alleges in this Count, as if stated verbatim, all factual allegations in ¶J 4-40, and any other paragraph this Court deems applicable. Also, every fact and allegation in this Count supports Green's allegation that before and during various times Green was sexually assaulted, Green had a clearly
18

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 19 of 25
established constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment in the form of Defendants deliberately ignoring the concrete and known risk of the very physical injuries Green suffered, as well as Defendants ignoring the known physical injuries Green indeed did suffer.
42. Based on the incorporated facts in this Count, Defendants, acting under the color of state law, violated Green's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by condoning and promoting unsafe prison conditions, evidenced by Defendants permitting Ricard to be in Green's cell while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be in said cell and while knowing Ricard would do what he did do: sexually assault Green. Defendant knowingly placed Green, who Defendants knew was known to place transgender at all relevant time, in substantial risk of physical injury. Defendant conduct demonstrated deliberate indifference to actual physical injuries to physical and emotional injuries Green suffered in fact and thus Defendants are liable to Green for creating an environment that led to her actually being anally raped and otherwise sexually assaulted.

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 20 of 25
43. Defendants' conduct directly and proximately caused Green to suffer significant physical and emotional injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.
Defendants' conduct was objectively unreasonable; that same conduct was willful, carefree disregard for Green's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Consequently, Green is entitled to all permissible damages, including punitive damages. Punitive damages are essential to deter future Eighth Amendment violations against transgender human beings within the GDC.
COUNT II SUPERVISORY LIABILITY (Against Defendants Jordan, Cook, Gay, Smith and McIntosh) "Supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation." Matthews supra, at 1269- 70. The acts and omissions of all Defendants named in this Count proximately caused the deprivation of Green's clearly established constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment in the form of, inter alia, being beaten while handcuffed and non-
20

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 21 of 25
resisting. 45.
Green re-alleges in this Count, as if fully stated verbatim, all factual
allegations set forth in IT 4-44, and any other paragraph that this Court deems
applicable.
Based on the facts incorporated to his Count, Defendants named in this Count are potentially liable under this Count because they directly participated in the alleged constitutional violation by seeing Ricard in Green's PC cell and doing nothing to remove Ricard from Green's cell at all relevant times—while knowing Ricard would do exactly what he did do: sexually assault Green. These Defendants had the supervisorial authority to prevent Green from being placed in a "protective-custody" cell with her sexual assailant and did nothing to stop Ricard from being in the same cell with Green at all relevant times to this Complaint.
21

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 22 of 25
COUNT III CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against Defendants All Defendants) To state a plausible claim for civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to reasonably infer that a Defendant reached an understanding with another person to violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights; the conspiratorial act must also "impinge" upon the plaintiff's constitutional right. See Grider v. City of Auburn, Ala., 618 F 3d 1240, 1260 (11th cir. 2010). Significantly, Plaintiffs can prove civil conspiracy with circumstantial evidence. Id.
47. Green re-alleges in this Count, as if fully stated verbatim, all factual allegations set forth in ¶J 4-44, and any other paragraph that this Court deems applicable.
11 R91 Based on the incorporated facts into this Count, these Defendants conspired with Tone Grubbs (a defendant in another lawsuit arising out of the same facts and circumstances) to violate Green's constitutional rights. There is simply no way that all Defendants could perform security check and see Ricard in Green cell, while knowing Ricard was not authorized to be there, and not
22

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 23 of 25
have conspired to permit Ricard to stay in Green's cell. Defendants' actions are gross and unconstitutional. Grubbs conspired with Green's sexual assailant and Hon Doe to have Green placed in a cell with the person both Grubbs and John Doe knew had sexually assaulted Green and knew would sexually assault Green again once Green was left in the "protective custody" cell alone with said sexual assailant. Grubbs spoke to the assailant just prior to having Green transported to the subject cell where Green's sexual assailant was waiting inside. Grubbs conduct was a shameless, depraved heart act, showing a callous disregard for the U.S Constitution and human dignity.
pI Defendants' conspiratorial conduct caused Green immense pain and suffering and as such, Green is entitled to all permissible damages under law.
COUNT IV FAILURE TO INTERVENE
50. Green re-alleges in this Count, as if fully stated verbatim, all
factual allegations set forth in IT 4-49, and any other paragraph that this
Court deems applicable.
23

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 24 of 25
51. Based on the incorporated facts into this Count, Defendants failed to intervene to stop a constitutional violation that Defendants knew was occurring and going to occur. As such, Green is entitled to all damages allowed under applicable law and rules.
PUNTIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY FEES Defendants' conduct entitles Green to an award of punitive damage. Green also request reasonable attorney fees under all applicable laws. Green now prays that this Court do the following:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this action; 2. Declare that the acts and omissions described in this Complaint violated Green's clearly-established rights under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States; 3. Permit a jury of at least six (6) to decide all issues of fact that this Court does not decide as a matter of law; 4. Enter judgment in favor of Green- for all permissible damages under law, including compensatory and punitive damages- against each defendant jointly and severally; 5. Award Green all permissible costs under law regarding this lawsuit, including reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
24

Case 6:14-cv-00103-JRH-JEG Document 1 Filed 09/19/14 Page 25 of 25

§ 1988(b) & (c); and

• Order any additional relief that this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of September 2014,

The Historic Grant Building 44 Broad Street, NW Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: 404-654-0288 Fax: 404-592-6225 mariocZigoodgeorgialawyer.com

s/MARIO WILLIAMS Mario Williams GA Bar No. 235254WTLLIAMS OINONEN, LLC

Counsel For Green

25

 
 Case: 6:14-cv-103 As of: 02/06/2020 01:40 PM EST 1 of 3
CLOSED,JYTRL,MEMBER
U.S. District Court Southern District of Georgia (Statesboro) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:14−cv−00103−JRH−JEG

Green v. Calhoun et al Assigned to: Chief Judge J. Randal Hall Referred to: Magistrate Judge James E. Graham Lead case: 6:14−cv−00046−JRH−GRS Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Darius Ishun Green TERMINATED: 07/23/2018

Date Filed: 09/19/2014 Date Terminated: 07/23/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Mario Bernard Williams NDH LLC 44 Broad Street, NW Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−254−0442 Fax: 404−935−9391 Email: mwilliams@ndh−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Charles Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Brad Westberry TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant John Jordan TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Wayne Cook TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Christopher Gay TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Mark Smith TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Terry Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Jermaine Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018

Case: 6:14-cv-103 As of: 02/06/2020 01:40 PM EST 2 of 3
Defendant Cynthia Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Jettie Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Shawn Calhoun TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Benjamin Mourad TERMINATED: 07/23/2018
Defendant Basahan McIntosh TERMINATED: 07/23/2018

Date Filed 09/19/2014
09/19/2014
09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry, filed by Darius Ishun Green. Receipt # 113J−1668002 (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(loh) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
2 Summons Issued as to Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. (loh) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
3 GENERAL ORDER: Report of Rule 26(f) planning meeting. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/19/2014. (loh) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Darius Ishun Green. (loh) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
4 Disclosure Statement pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.1 by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
5 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Darius Ishun Green as to Jermaine Calhoun. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
6 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Darius Ishun Green as to Terry Calhoun. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Charles Calhoun served on 10/15/2014, answer due 11/5/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Cynthia Calhoun served on 10/15/2014, answer due 11/5/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Basahan McIntosh served on 10/15/2014, answer due 11/5/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Christopher Gay served on 10/15/2014, answer due 11/5/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. John Jordan served on 10/22/2014, answer due 11/12/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Jettie Calhoun served on 10/14/2014, answer due 11/4/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

Case: 6:14-cv-103 As of: 02/06/2020 01:40 PM EST 3 of 3

10/28/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014 11/11/2014 11/11/2014 06/18/2015 06/18/2015 10/08/2015 10/09/2015 10/09/2015 11/24/2015
11/25/2015 12/02/2015 02/25/2016
02/25/2016 03/04/2016 07/23/2018
10/03/2018

13 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Shawn Calhoun served on 10/14/2014, answer due 11/4/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
14 ORDER consolidating case with CV614−46. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 11/4/14. (bcw) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
Cases associated: Create association to 6:14−cv−00046−BAE−GRS. (bcw) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Benjamin Mourad served on 10/23/2014, answer due 11/13/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Brad Westberry served on 10/23/2014, answer due 11/13/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/11/2014)
17 ORDER REOPENING CASE that the Clerk is directed to reopen this case. All future motions and filings, however, shall be filed under case number 6:14−cv−046. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/18/2015. (jah) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
Cases associated: Create association to 6:14−cv−00046−JRH−GRS. (jah) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
18 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 11/17/2015−11/25/2015 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 10/26/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 18 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 11/17/2015−11/25/2015. (bcw) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
19 ORDER granting 18 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/9/15. (jrb) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
20 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 12/21/15−01/08/16 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 12/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 20 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 12/21/15−01/08/16. (loh) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/2/2015. (loh) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
22 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : February 25, 2016 to March 14, 2016 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 3/14/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 22 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : February 25, 2016 to March 14, 2016. (loh) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/4/16. (wwp) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
24 ORDER Administratively Closing this case for all purposes of statistical reporting. Upon the final resolution of Plaintiff's presently−pending appeal in the Primary Case, either party may move to reopen this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/23/2018. (maa) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge James E. Graham. Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith no longer assigned to the case. (wwp) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

 
 Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 1 of 19
JYTRL,LEAD
U.S. District Court Southern District of Georgia (Statesboro) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:14−cv−00046−JRH−GRS

Green v. Hooks et al Assigned to: Chief Judge J. Randal Hall Referred to: Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith rel Case: 6:05−cr−00015−JRH−CLR−1
Case in other court: USDC/SDGA, 6:14−cv−103 Member Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/17/2014 Date Terminated: 03/21/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Darius Ishun Green TERMINATED: 03/21/2017

represented by David Betts Beasley Allen Law Firm 218 Commerce St. P. O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103−4160 404−577−8888 Email: davidbetts@bettslaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julie Oinonen Williams Oinonen LLC The Grant Bldg, Suite 200 44 Broad Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 404−654−0288 Fax: 404−592−6225 Email: julie@goodgeorgialawyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mario Bernard Williams NDH LLC 44 Broad Street, NW Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−254−0442 Fax: 404−935−9391 Email: mwilliams@ndh−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Warden Brad Hooks TERMINATED: 03/21/2017

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch Dept. of Law GA Attorney General's Office 40 Capitol Sq., SW Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−463−8850 Fax: 404−651−5304 Email: mhirsch@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 2 of 19

Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 404−463−8850 Fax: 404−651−5304 Email: ecrowder@law.ga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Deputy Warden John Brown TERMINATED: 03/21/2017

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Leiutenant Torie Grubbs TERMINATED: 03/21/2017

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

Defendant
Charles Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Brad Westberry TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Jordan TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 3 of 19

Defendant Wayne Cook TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant Christopher Gay TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant Officer Mark Smith TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant C.O. II Terry Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant Jermaine Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant Cynthia Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016
Defendant

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 4 of 19

Jettie Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Shawn Calhoun TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Benjamin Mourad TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Basahan McIntosh TERMINATED: 08/12/2016

represented by Michelle J. Hirsch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth McRary Crowder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections

represented by Tina M. Piper Georgia Department of Law 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−463−8850 Fax: 404−651−4304 Email: tpiper@law.ga.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Notice
Georgia Department of Corrections TERMINATED: 03/21/2017

represented by Joseph J. Drolet Dept. of Law 40 Capitol Sq., SW Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−657−3983 Fax: 404−463−8864 Email: josephdrolet@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 07/31/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 5 of 19
Angelique B. McClendon 404−657−3980 Fax: 404−463−8864 Email: amcclendon@law.ga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/17/2014
05/17/2014 05/17/2014 05/19/2014
05/19/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 07/01/2014
07/02/2014 07/03/2014 07/23/2014 07/29/2014
08/13/2014 08/28/2014
08/28/2014 08/28/2014 09/10/2014
09/10/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against John Brown, John Doe, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(wwp) Modified on 5/19/2014 (wwp). (Entered: 05/19/2014)
Filing fee: $ 400.00, receipt number 113J−1594614. (wwp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Darius Ishun Green. (wwp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
2 General Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(F). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/19/14. (Attachments: # 1 Notice) (wwp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
3 Summons Issued as to John Brown, John Doe, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (wwp) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. John Brown served on 6/11/2014, answer due 7/2/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Torie Grubbs served on 6/11/2014, answer due 7/2/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
6 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : August 4, 2014 through August 15, 2014 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 7/18/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks.(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth McRary Crowder on behalf of John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks (Crowder, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
9 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 10/2/2014. Discovery due by 1/18/2015. Motions due by 2/17/2015. Expert Witness Report (Plaintiff) due by 10/2/2014. Expert Witness Report (defendant) due by 11/24/2014. Status Report due by 10/30/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Trial Information) (loh) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Brad Hooks served on 6/13/2014, answer due 7/4/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 08/13/2014)
12 MOTION for Protective Order by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 9/15/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Subpoena to Georgia Department of Corrections, # 2 Exhibit B, Good faith letter to Plaintiff, # 3 Exhibit C, Response to Good Faith Letter)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 12 MOTION for Protective Order. (wwp) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
13 RESPONSE filed by Georgia Department of Corrections. (McClendon, Angelique) (Entered: 08/28/2014)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's good faith email, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's subpoena to produce documents, # 3 Exhibit Email correspondence between counsel regarding protective order from court)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
15 NOTICE of Intent to File a Reply Brief by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks re 12 MOTION for Protective Order . (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 6 of 19

09/18/2014 09/19/2014 09/19/2014 09/24/2014 09/24/2014 09/26/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014 10/06/2014 10/15/2014
10/16/2014
10/17/2014 10/23/2014 10/28/2014 10/28/2014
10/28/2014

16 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Furnish Expert Reports With No Objection From Defendants. by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 10/6/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 16 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Furnish Expert Reports With No Objection From Defendants. (wwp) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
17 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green re 1 Complaint Related Civil Suit That Arises Out Of The Same Facts And Circumstances As This Case (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
18 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time. Expert Reports due by 10/23/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/24/14. (bcw) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Expert Witness Report (Plaintiff) due by 10/20/2014. (bcw) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
19 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 10/13/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Agreed Protective Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
20 REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION for Protective Order filed by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Order in Nordoteck v. RDP Technologies)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
21 ORDER granting 19 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/30/14. (bcw) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
22 ORDER dismissing as moot 6 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 10/6/2014. (loh) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
23 MOTION for Protective Order Related to Second Subpoena issued to Georgia Department of Corrections by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 11/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, subpoena issued 9/23/14, # 2 Exhibit B, subpoena issued 9/26/14, # 3 Exhibit C, good faith letter)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
24 MOTION to Withdraw 23 MOTION for Protective Order Related to Second Subpoena issued to Georgia Department of Corrections , Unopposed by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 11/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Withdraw re 23 MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/15/2014. (loh) Modified on 10/17/2014 (loh). (Entered: 10/17/2014)
26 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/23/2014. (loh) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
27 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
28 DEPOSITION of Annettia Toby taken on October 22, 2014 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena Sent To The Department of Corrections, # 2 Exhibit Letter Addressed To Commissioner Brian Owens Regarding Security Checklists)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of Corrections, First MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/14/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email About Logbook Regarding Knowledge Of DOC Staff On Duty On Dates In Question, # 2 Exhibit Some Relevant Portion Of Actual Logbook Entries Regarding Staff On Duty On Dates In Question, # 3 Exhibit Expert Report of Joe Gunja Demonstrating Relevance And Importance Of Missing Security Checklists, # 4 Exhibit Expert Report of Valerie Jenesse Demonstrating Relevance And Importance Of Missing Security Checklists, # 5 Exhibit Email Exchanged Demonstrating Attempts To Get A Unambigous Answer About Security Checklists, # 6 Exhibit Profile Of Darryl Ricard (Alleged Assailant of Plaintiff))(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 7 of 19

10/28/2014 10/29/2014
10/29/2014 10/30/2014 10/30/2014 10/30/2014
10/31/2014 11/03/2014
11/04/2014 11/04/2014 11/04/2014
11/05/2014 11/05/2014 11/05/2014

MOTIONS REFERRED: 29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of Corrections First MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections. (wwp) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Demonstrating Bad Faith Conduct By The Department Of Corrections, # 2 Exhibit Emails Demonstrating GDC Refusal To Produce Public Documents Based Allegedly On "Relevancy" Grounds, # 3 Exhibit Relevant Subpoena, # 4 Exhibit More Good Faith Correspondence, # 5 Exhibit GDC Policy Entitled Management Of Transsexuals, Demonstrating That GDC Has Definition For Inmates Such As Plaintiff)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery. (bcw) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
31 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/17/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
32 STATUS REPORT −JOINT by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
33 First MOTION to Stay re 30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery, 29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of CorrectionsFirst MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections, 31 Consent MOTION to Consolidate Cases Discovery Until The Resolution Of Multiple Motions And For Other Legitimate Reasons by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Where Plaintiff Has Demonstrated Good Faith In Holding Off Depositions Until December)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
34 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 12/16/2014 to 01/05/2015 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/17/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
35 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green re 30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery New Evidence That Supports Pl's Motion To Compel (ECF 30) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email Demonstrating DOC Find Relevant Information Rather Quickly, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Inmate Which Was Secured After Defendants Visited Inmate; Then Said Inmate Contacted Pl's Counsel)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
37 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of CorrectionsFirst MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections filed by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
38 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Consolidate Cases. CV614−46 consolidated with CV614−103. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 11/4/14. (bcw) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
39 MOTION to Dismiss by Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Christopher Gay, Basahan McIntosh, Brad Westberry. Responses due by 11/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Declaration of Jettie Calhoun, # 3 Exhibit B, Declaration of Shawn Calhoun, # 4 Exhibit C, Declaration of Christopher Gay, # 5 Exhibit D, Declaration of Otis McIntosh, # 6 Exhibit E, Declaration of Leland Westberry, # 7 Exhibit F, Declaration of Cynthia Calhoun)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
40 MOTION for leave to depose Joel Reid at his place of incarceration and brief in support. (Williams, Mario) Modified on 11/7/2014 (wwp). (Entered: 11/05/2014)
41 MOTION to Dismiss by Charles Calhoun, John Jordan. Responses due by 11/24/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Declaration of John Jordan, # 3 Exhibit B, Declaration of Charles Calhoun)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
42 MOTION for leave to depose Darryl Ricard at his place of incarceration and brief in support. (Williams, Mario) Modified on 11/7/2014 (wwp). (Entered: 11/05/2014)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 8 of 19

11/07/2014 11/12/2014 11/13/2014 11/13/2014 11/14/2014
11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014
11/21/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014 11/24/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014
12/03/2014

MOTIONS REFERRED: 40 MOTION for Leave to File, 42 MOTION for Leave to File. (wwp) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
43 MOTION to Dismiss by Benjamin Mourad. Responses due by 12/1/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Declaration of Benjamin Mourad)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
44 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 Response in Opposition to Motion Regarding Plaintiff's Motion To Compel and Sanction The Department Of Corrections by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 12/1/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 44 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 Response in Opposition to Motion Regarding Plaintiff's Motion To Compel and Sanction The Department Of Corrections. (bcw) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
45 RESPONSE to Motion re 29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of CorrectionsFirst MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections filed by Georgia Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− "Emails To Mario Williams re: search for Identity of person who transported Plaintiff to cell", # 2 Exhibit B−"Sept. 24, 2014 email to Mario Williams with Plaintiff's hand written statement attached", # 3 Exhibit C−"Emails to Mario Williams re: location of security checklists")(McClendon, Angelique) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
46 Consent MOTION to Stay re 10 Scheduling Order, Discovery by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 12/4/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 46 Consent MOTION to Stay re 10 Scheduling Order, Discovery. (wwp) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
47 Summons Returned Unexecuted by Darius Ishun Green as to Mark Smith. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
48 RESPONSE to Motion re 30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery filed by Georgia Department of Corrections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− E−mail to Mario Williams regarding discovery pick−up", # 2 Exhibit B− "Subpoena Production Cover Letter", # 3 Exhibit C− "Email to Mario Williams regarding unredacted audit summaries", # 4 Exhibit D−"Email to Mario Williams re: locks as public records")(McClendon, Angelique) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
49 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Dismiss To Defs' Mot To Dimiss 39 filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
50 *******First MOTION for Hearing re 49 Response in Opposition to Motion, 39 MOTION to Dismiss , First MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 12/11/2014. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Dismiss To Mourad's Motion To Dismiss filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 41 MOTION to Dismiss To Jordan And C Calhoun's MTD filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
53 REPLY to Response to Motion re 44 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 37 Response in Opposition to Motion Regarding Plaintiff's Motion To Compel and Sanction The Department Of Corrections filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
54 REPLY to Response to Motion re 29 First MOTION to Compel Against The Department Of CorrectionsFirst MOTION for Sanctions Against The Department of Corrections Reply To Defendants Response To Pl's Mot To Compel And Sanction The Dept Of Corrections filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
55 NOTICE of Intent to File Reply Briefs by Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Brad Westberry re 43 MOTION to Dismiss , 39 MOTION to

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 9 of 19

12/03/2014 12/04/2014 12/08/2014
12/08/2014
12/15/2014 12/16/2014 12/17/2014 12/23/2014
12/30/2014 12/30/2014 01/02/2015 01/05/2015 01/06/2015 01/06/2015
01/09/2015 01/12/2015 01/13/2015 01/13/2015

Dismiss , 41 MOTION to Dismiss . (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
56 REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 Second MOTION to Compel Regarding The Department Of Corrections' Unlawful Conduct During Discovery filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
57 Summons Issued as to Mark Smith. (bcw) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
58 REPLY to Response to Motion re 43 MOTION to Dismiss , 39 MOTION to Dismiss , 41 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Brad Westberry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of Melissa McClary, # 2 Exhibit B, Declaration of Leland Westberry, # 3 Exhibit C, List of Employees)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition re 50 First MOTION for Hearing re 49 Response in Opposition to Motion, 39 MOTION to Dismiss First MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Brad Westberry. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
60 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
61 ORDER granting 46 Motion to Stay discovery in the case. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/16/14. (wwp) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
62 Summons Issued as to Jermaine Calhoun, Terry Calhoun. (wwp) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
63 SUR REPLY re 39 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Sur Reply to Defendants' reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendants required specialized training regarding their work shifts in the protective custody (administration segregation) unit)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
64 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Terry Calhoun served on 12/23/2014, answer due 1/13/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
65 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Jermaine Calhoun served on 12/23/2014, answer due 1/13/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
66 MOTION to Dismiss by Mark Smith. Responses due by 1/19/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Declaration of Mark Smith, # 3 Exhibit B, Declaration of Ceci Jordan)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/02/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 66 MOTION to Dismiss. (bcw) (Entered: 01/05/2015)
67 Summons Issued as to Wayne Cook. (wwp) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
68 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion to Dismiss; denying 50 Motion for Hearing; denying 50 Motion for Order to Show Cause. The Court denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF 39, 41, 43 with regard to Counts I, II, and III. Therefore, those counts remain. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 1/6/15. (wwp) Modified on 1/7/2015 (wwp). (Entered: 01/07/2015)
69 NOTICE of Filing by Mark Smith re 66 MOTION to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark Smith)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
Motions No Longer Referred: 66 MOTION to Dismiss. (wwp) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
70 MOTION to Dismiss by Jermaine Calhoun, Terry Calhoun. Responses due by 1/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Declaration of Terry Calhoun, # 3 Exhibit B, Declaration of Jermaine Calhoun)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
71 RESPONSE in Opposition re 66 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 01/13/2015)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 10 of 19

01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/22/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 01/28/2015
02/10/2015
02/16/2015
02/27/2015 05/07/2015
05/15/2015 06/18/2015 06/26/2015 07/17/2015
07/30/2015 07/30/2015
07/30/2015

72 RESPONSE in Opposition re 70 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
73 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darius Ishun Green. Wayne Cook served on 1/9/2015, answer due 1/30/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
74 ORDER dismissing as moot 34 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 1/22/15. (wwp) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
75 ANSWER to Complaint by Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Christopher Gay, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Brad Westberry.(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
76 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) by Wayne Cook. Responses due by 2/12/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
77 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION to Dismiss , 70 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Jermaine Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Mark Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Executed Declaration of Terry Calhoun, # 2 Exhibit B, Executed Declaration of Jermaine Calhoun)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
78 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 76 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 2/10/15. (bcw) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
79 MOTION for Clarification re 78 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. Responses due by 3/5/2015. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 02/16/2015)
80 ANSWER to Complaint with Defenses by Jermaine Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Mark Smith.(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
81 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge J. Randal Hall for all further proceedings. Judge B. Avant Edenfield no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 5/7/15. (wwp) Modified on 5/11/2015 (wwp). (Main Document 81 replaced on 5/12/2015) (bcw). (Entered: 05/07/2015)
82 ORDER directing the Clerk to terminate 79 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/15/2015. (thb) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
Cases associated: Create association to 6:14−cv−00046−JRH−GRS. (jah) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
84 ORDER denying as moot 33 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 6/26/15. (cmr) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
85 ORDER denying 29 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Compel; granting 40 Motion for Leave to File; granting 42 Motion for Leave to File; granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 29 Motion to Compel. Responses due by 8/3/2015 for the parties to confer and submit a status report to the Court proposing a new scheduling order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/16/15. (wwp) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
86 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
87 MOTION for Discovery Unopposed Motion for Leave to Depose Incarcerated Persons by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. Responses due by 8/17/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 87 MOTION for Discovery Unopposed Motion for Leave to Depose Incarcerated Persons. (bcw) (Entered: 07/30/2015)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 11 of 19

07/31/2015 08/03/2015
08/05/2015 08/05/2015 10/08/2015 10/09/2015 10/09/2015 10/26/2015 10/26/2015 10/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/02/2015
11/24/2015
11/24/2015 12/02/2015 02/25/2016
02/26/2016 03/04/2016 03/08/2016

88 ORDER granting 87 Motion for Discovery. Defendants are granted leave to depose William Douthitt and William Pierce. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/30/15. (bcw) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
89 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 4/28/2015. Discovery due by 1/15/2016. Motions due by 2/14/2016. Expert Witness Report (defendant) due by 9/30/2015. Status Report due by 11/2/2015.. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/3/15. (wwp) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
90 ORDERED that Defendants have until September 15, 2015 to respond to Plaintiff's additional interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/5/2015. (loh) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 9/15/2015. (loh) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
91 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 11/17/2015−11/25/15 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 10/26/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 91 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 11/17/2015−11/25/15. (bcw) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
92 ORDER granting 91 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/9/15. (jrb) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
93 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/12/2015. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 93 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (bcw) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
94 ORDER granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery period is extended to 3/31/16 and civil motions are now extended to 4/30/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/28/15. (wwp) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Discovery due by 3/31/2016. Motions due by 4/30/2016. (wwp) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
95 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. (Crowder, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
96 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 12/21/15−01/08/16 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 12/11/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 96 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : 12/21/15−01/08/16. (bcw) (Entered: 11/24/2015)
97 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 12/2/2015. (loh) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
98 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : February 25, 2016 to March 14, 2016 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 3/14/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 02/25/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 98 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : February 25, 2016 to March 14, 2016 (wwp) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
99 ORDER granting 98 Motion for Leave of Absence by Mario Williams. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/4/16. (bcw) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
100 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 3/25/2016. (Williams, Mario) Modified on 3/9/2016 (thb). (Entered: 03/08/2016)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 12 of 19

03/08/2016 03/08/2016 03/09/2016 03/17/2016 04/06/2016 04/25/2016
04/25/2016 04/25/2016
04/25/2016 04/25/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 05/12/2016 05/12/2016
05/27/2016
05/27/2016
05/27/2016

MOTIONS REFERRED: 100 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (wwp) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
Motions No Longer Referred: 100 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (wwp) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
101 ORDER granting 100 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery due by 5/16/2016. Motions due by 6/16/2016. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/09/2016. (thb) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
102 NOTICE of Appearance by Mario Bernard Williams on behalf of Darius Ishun Green (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
103 NOTICE by Darius Ishun Green Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition Of Darryl Ricard (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
104 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice David Betts Receipt Number 113J−1967889, Fee Amount $200, by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 5/12/2016. (Williams, Mario) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/25/2016: # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (jrb). (Entered: 04/25/2016)
105 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Julie Oinonen Receipt Number 113J−1967902, Fee Amount $200, by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 5/12/2016. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 105 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Julie Oinonen Receipt Number 113J−1967902, Fee Amount $200, 104 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice David Betts Receipt Number 113J−1967889, Fee Amount $200. (bcw) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
106 ORDER granting 105 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Julie Oinonen. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/25/16. (bcw) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
107 ORDER granting 104 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David Betts. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 4/25/16. (bcw) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
108 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Darius Ishun Green. Darius Ishun Green Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(A)(1) Amended Initial Disclosures. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
109 NOTICE by Darius Ishun Green Withdrawal Darius Ishun Green Fed.R.Civ.P.26 (A)(1) Amended Initial Disclosures (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
110 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 5/31/2016. (Williams, Mario) Modified on 6/3/2016 (thb). (Entered: 05/12/2016)
111 NOTICE of Intent to File Response Brief by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, John Doe, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry re 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. Responses due by 6/13/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) Modified on 6/3/2016 (thb). (Entered: 05/27/2016)
114 NOTICE of Filing by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry re 112 Response in Opposition to Motion, (Attachments:

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 13 of 19

05/27/2016 05/27/2016 05/27/2016 06/03/2016
06/16/2016 06/16/2016 07/13/2016
07/15/2016 07/18/2016 07/18/2016
07/19/2016
07/19/2016

# 1 Exhibit A, April 14, 2016 email, # 2 Exhibit B, April 15, 2016 email, # 3 Exhibit C, April 28, 2016 email, # 4 Exhibit D, May 2, 2016 correspondence, # 5 Exhibit E, May 5, 2016 correspondence)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. (bcw) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (bcw) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
Motions No Longer Referred: 110 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , 113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. (bcw) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
115 ORDER granting 113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions; granting 110 MOTION to extend discovery. The Court Orders that discovery is limited to taking depositions of Defendants, Joel Lamont Reid, James Wesley Cox, Steve Wesley Chrysler, and Defendants' two experts. No other individuals may be deposed and no written discovery may occur. The Court emphasizes that no further discovery extensions will be granted. Discovery due by 7/18/2016. Motions due by 8/8/2016. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/03/2016. (thb) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
116 DEPOSITION of Brad Hooks taken on June 24, 2016 by Darius Ishun Green.(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
117 NOTICE by Darius Ishun Green re 116 Deposition WITHDRAWAL NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
118 ******* MOTION to Exclude Witness Joel Lamont Reid Alternatively, Motion to Depose Witness Out of Time, MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. Responses due by 8/1/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proof of Service, # 2 Exhibit B − Petition for Contempt and Order to Show Cause)(Crowder, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
119 RESPONSE to Motion re 118 MOTION to Exclude Witness Joel Lamont Reid Alternatively, Motion to Depose Witness Out of Time MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
120 NOTICE by Darius Ishun Green re 118 MOTION to Exclude Witness Joel Lamont Reid Alternatively, Motion to Depose Witness Out of Time MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery , 119 Response to Motion, Status update Regarding Joel Reid who has been released and has agreed to be deposed (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
121 NOTICE of Intent to File Reply by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry re 118 MOTION to Exclude Witness Joel Lamont Reid Alternatively, Motion to Depose Witness Out of Time MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery . (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
122 REPLY to Response to Motion re 118 MOTION to Exclude Witness Joel Lamont Reid Alternatively, Motion to Depose Witness Out of Time MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by John Brown, Charles Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks, John Jordan, Basahan McIntosh, Benjamin Mourad, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Nov. 3, 2014 email, # 2 Exhibit B, Sept. 16, 2015 email, # 3 Exhibit C, Sept. 24, 2015 letter, # 4 Exhibit D, Sept. 29, 2015 email, # 5 Exhibit E, Feb. 16, 2016 email, # 6 Exhibit F, May 9, 2016 email, # 7 Exhibit G, June 9, 2016 email)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
123 RESPONSE to 122 Reply to Response to Motion,,, filed by Jermaine Calhoun, Christopher Gay, Brad Hooks, Cynthia Calhoun, Terry Calhoun, Charles Calhoun,

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 14 of 19

07/21/2016
07/21/2016 07/29/2016
08/01/2016 08/02/2016 08/10/2016 08/12/2016
08/17/2016 08/24/2016 08/26/2016

Torie Grubbs, Basahan McIntosh, Wayne Cook, John Jordan, Jettie Calhoun, Mark Smith, Brad Westberry, Benjamin Mourad, Shawn Calhoun, John Brown filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
124 ORDER granting in part 118 Motion by Defendant to depose Reid outside the close of discovery on July 27, 2016. The Court also grants parties' request for an extension of the civil−motion deadline to August 26, 2016. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 7−21−2016. (pts) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 8/26/2016. (pts) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
125 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : August 15−19 and 22, 2016; September 23, 26−30, 2016; October 10−14, 2016 and November 3−4 and 7, 2016 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 8/15/2016. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 125 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : August 15−19 and 22, 2016; September 23, 26−30, 2016; October 10−14, 2016 and November 3−4 and 7, 2016 (wwp) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
126 ORDER granting 125 Motion for Leave of Absence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/1/2016. (loh) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
127 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green re 38 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases Stipulation to dismiss all claims against certain named defendants, with prejudice, with parties bearing their own costs (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
128 ORDER dismissing with prejudice all claims against Defendants Charles Calhoun, Brad Westberry, John Jordan, Wayne Cook, Christopher Gay, Officer Mark Smith, C.O. II Terry Calhoun, Jermaine Calhoun, Cynthia Calhoun, Jettie Calhoun, Shawn Calhoun, Benjamin Mourad, Bashan McIntosh and John Doe. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees with respect to these Defendants. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/12/2016. (thb) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
129 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 9/6/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
130 ORDER granting 129 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The parties' page limit for the briefs on this motion for summary judgment is hereby extended to Thirty−Six Pages. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/24/2016. (thb) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
131 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 9/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Stmt of Material Fact, # 2 Memorandum of Law in Support, # 3 Summary Judgment Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of Bradley Hooks, # 5 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of John Brown, # 6 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Torie Grubbs, # 7 Exhibit 4 − Expert Report and Disclosure of Sharon R. Shaver, # 8 Exhibit 5 − Report and Opinion of Steve Upton, # 9 Exhibit 6 − Declaration of Mark Smith, # 10 Exhibit 7 − Deposition of Charles Lee Andrew Calhoun, # 11 Exhibit 8 − Deposition of Darius Green, # 12 Exhibit 9 − Plea Deal from Hall County Superior Court, # 13 Exhibit 10 − Classiffication Committee Form, # 14 Exhibit 11 − Movement History, # 15 Exhibit 12 − Diagnostic Orientation, # 16 Exhibit 13 − Diagnostic Arrival Questionnaire, # 17 Exhibit 14 − Offender Re−Entry Summary, # 18 Exhibit 15 − Audio Recording of Plaintiffs Internal Affairs Interview, # 19 Exhibit 16 − Case Notes History Details, # 20 Exhibit 17 − Defendant Brad Hooks First Request for Admission of Facts to Plaintiff, # 21 Exhibit 18 − Offender Orientation Checklist, # 22 Exhibit 19 − Case History for Darryl Ricard, # 23 Exhibit 20 − Classification Committee Form, # 24 Exhibit 21 − Security Threat Groups Renunciation, # 25 Exhibit 22 − Movement History for Rico Ricard, # 26 Exhibit 23 − Offender Personal Data Summary for Darryl Ricard, # 27 Exhibit 24 − Disciplinry History, # 28 Exhibit 25 − Correspondence from Darius Green, # 29 Exhibit 26 − September 2012 Calendar, # 30 Exhibit 27 − Witness Statement of Darius Green, # 31 Exhibit 28 − Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo, # 32 Exhibit 29 − Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo, # 33 Exhibit 30 − Witness Statement of Ricard D. Rico, # 34 Exhibit 31 − Declaration of Joel Reid, # 35 Exhibit 32 − Initial Hearing −Segregation Hearing, # 36 Exhibit 33 − Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 15 of 19

08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 09/13/2016
09/15/2016 10/07/2016
10/13/2016 10/13/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016
10/28/2016

132 NOTICE of Manual Filing by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 15 − Audio Recording of Plaintiffs Internal Affairs Interview)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
133 NOTICE issued re: 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 9/19/2016.(loh) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 9/12/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Report of Valerie Jenness, # 2 Exhibit 2, Report of Joseph Gunja, # 3 Exhibit 3, Excerpt of prior deposition of Valerie Jenness, # 4 Exhibit 4, Deposition of Joseph Gunja)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
135 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND THE RESPONSE TIME TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 9/30/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
136 ORDER granting 135 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 10/13/2016. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/15/2016. (thb) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
137 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment SECOND CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND THE RESPONSE TIME TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 10/24/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
138 ORDER granting 137 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment . No further extensions will be granted to Plaintiff on these responses. Responses due by 10/28/2016 by 5pm. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/13/16. (cmr) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
139 AMENDED ORDER (correcting date) re 138 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/13/16. (cmr) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
140 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
141 DEPOSITION of JOHN GREGORY BROWN taken on 07/07/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SOP for Administrative Segregation, # 2 Exhibit Blank segregation/isolation checklist, # 3 Exhibit Segregation/isolation checklist for Darius Green, # 4 Exhibit Blank administrative segregation assignment memo, # 5 Exhibit Partial movement history for Darius Ishun Green, # 6 Exhibit Minutes from the safety committee meeting held on July 11, 2012, # 7 Exhibit Lesson plan for administrative segregation/disciplinary isolation training, # 8 Exhibit P.O.S.T. training record for John G. Brown, # 9 Exhibit Initial segregation hearing form, # 10 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
142 DEPOSITION of BRADLEY CHARLES HOOKS taken on 07/12/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Subpoena and Documents, # 2 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Training Roster, # 3 Exhibit Lesson Plan Cover Sheet and Documents, # 4 Exhibit Administrative Segregation and Disciplinary Isolation In−Service 2009, # 5 Exhibit Subpoena and Documents, # 6 Exhibit Macon State Prison Facility Initial Segregation Hearing Dated 11/2/2012, # 7 Exhibit Blank Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo, # 8 Exhibit Blank Facility Segregation Hearing, # 9 Exhibit Segregation/Isolation Checklist, # 10 Exhibit Handwritten Letter, # 11 Exhibit Rogers State Prison Facility Initial Hearing, Segregation Hearing Form, Dated 09/21/2012, # 12 Exhibit Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo, Dated 9/21/2012, # 13 Exhibit Movement History, Inmate Darius Ishun Green − GDC ID 1285972, # 14 Exhibit Sexual Assault Charts for Rogers State Prison, # 15 Exhibit PREA Review Team Findings Report, Dated 10/18/2012, # 16 Exhibit Administrative

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 16 of 19

10/28/2016 10/28/2016
10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016
10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016

Segregation Assignment Memo, Dated 9/21/2012, Inmate Darryl Ricard)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
143 DEPOSITION of TORIE TRUMAINE GRUBBS taken on 07/06/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Blank Segregation/Isolation Checklist, # 2 Evacuation Plan for A1 Dormitories, # 3 A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
144 DEPOSITION of ZAHARA GREEN, f/k/a DARIUS ISHUN GREEN taken on 12/04/2015 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Brad Hooks' First Interrogatory to Plaintiff, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's John Brown First Interrogatory to Plaintiff, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Torrie Grubbs' First Interrogatory to Plaintiff, # 4 Exhibit Image History, # 5 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections form, 6/21/12, # 6 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections form, 7/26/12, # 7 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Offender Orientation Checklist, # 8 Exhibit Dormitories A1 Evacuation Plan, # 9 Exhibit August and September 2012 calendars, # 10 Exhibit Copy of handwritten letter and envelope, # 11 Exhibit Inmate Grievance Form, # 12 Exhibit Witness Statement, # 13 Exhibit Witness Statement, # 14 Exhibit Rogers State Prison Facility Initial Hearing Segregation Hearing, # 15 Exhibit Administrative Segregation Assignment Memo, # 16 Exhibit Copy of handwritten letter, with attachment)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
145 DEPOSITION of DARRYL RICO RICARD−EL taken on 04/13/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Inmate File, # 2 Exhibit A1 Dorm Evacuation Plan, # 3 Exhibit Audio Recording of Interview, # 4 Exhibit Witness Statement, # 5 Exhibit Disciplinary Investigation Summary, # 6 Exhibit Witness Statement, # 7 Exhibit Witness Statement)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
146 DEPOSITION of LISA WEAVER taken on 12/03/2015 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Application for Visitation Privilege "Significant Relationship Visitor", # 2 Exhibit A+ Financial Services Cover Sheet, with attachments)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
147 DEPOSITION of JOSEPH EDWARD GUNJA taken on 04/26/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3/4/16 letter from Ms. Hirsch to Mr. Gunja, # 2 Exhibit Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit Segregation/Isolation Checklist, # 4 Exhibit A+ Financial Services cover sheet, with attached copy of handwritten letter and envelope, # 5 Exhibit Color copy of photograph, # 6 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Standard Operating Procedures, Facility Operations, # 7 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Standard Operating Procedures, Health Services − Physical Health, # 8 Exhibit Expert Report and Disclosure of Valerie Janness, Ph.D., # 9 Exhibit Witness Statement, # 10 Exhibit Rogers State Prison Initial Hearing Segregation Hearing, # 11 Exhibit PREA Review Team Findings Report)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
148 DEPOSITION of CHARLES LEE ANDREW CALHOUN taken on 07/06/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Evacuation Plan for A1 Dormitories, # 2 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12, # 3 Exhibit Segregation/Isolation checklist for Darius Green)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
149 DEPOSITION of JERMAINE RONELL CALHOUN taken on 07/06/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12, # 2 Exhibit Notice of Final Action for Jermaine Calhoun dated May 6, 2009, # 3 Exhibit Employee Counseling Report dated 1/17/12, # 4 Exhibit Official Letter of Reprimand dated May 10, 2013, # 5 Exhibit Signed acknowledgment of administrative segregation unit staff orientation/training dated 12/4/11 for Jermaine Calhoun)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
150 DEPOSITION of WAYNE COOK taken on 07/08/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
151 DEPOSITION of WILLIAM RICHARD DOUTHITT taken on 12/11/2015 by Darius Ishun Green.(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 17 of 19

10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016
10/28/2016 10/28/2016 10/28/2016
11/02/2016 11/02/2016

152 DEPOSITION of CHRISTOPHER ANDREW GAY taken on 07/08/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
153 DEPOSITION of JOHN WAYNE JORDAN, II taken on 07/07/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A one−page document entitled "Administrative Segregation Unit Staff Orientation/Training" signed by Wayne Jordan on 12/4/11)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
154 DEPOSITION of OTIS McINTOSH taken on 07/08/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letters of instruction to Lieutenant Otis McIntosh, # 2 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
155 DEPOSITION of BENJAMIN MICHAEL MOURAD taken on 07/12/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated September 20, 2012 to October 18, 2012, # 2 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Incident Report, Dated 10/27/2011, # 3 Exhibit Georgia Department of Corrections Administrative Segregation Unit Staff Orientation/Training)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
156 DEPOSITION of WILLIAM BRADFORD PIERCE taken on 12/15/2015 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Diagram of Witness's Dorm Room at Rogers State Prison)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
157 DEPOSITION of JOEL REID taken on 08/16/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Case History, # 2 Exhibit Housing History, # 3 Exhibit Handwritten Statement, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Joel Reid, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Joel Reid, # 6 Exhibit Offender Grievance, # 7 Exhibit Photograph)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
158 DEPOSITION of MARK ALLEN SMITH, JR. taken on 07/06/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Evacuation Plan for A1 Dormitories, # 2 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12, # 3 Exhibit Segregation/Isolation checklist for Darius Green)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
159 DEPOSITION of STEPHEN UPTON taken on 06/29/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Initial segregation form, # 2 Exhibit Segregation checklist, # 3 Exhibit Segregation checklist, # 4 Exhibit Upton's report, # 5 Exhibit Green's letter)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
160 DEPOSITION of LELAND BRAD WESTBERRY taken on 07/07/2016 by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A two−page document containing officer information and training history for Leland B. Westberry, # 2 Exhibit A one−page document entitled "Administrative Segregation Unit Staff Orientation/Training" signed by Brad Westberry on 12/4/11, # 3 Exhibit A3 Duty Logs dated 9/19/12 to 9/22/12)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
161 RESPONSE in Opposition re 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
162 RESPONSE in Opposition re 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
163 RESPONSE to 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Brad Hooks, John Brown, Torie Grubbs filed by Darius Ishun Green. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 12, # 12 Exhibit 13, # 13 Exhibit 14, # 14 Exhibit 17, # 15 Exhibit 18, # 16 Exhibit 19, # 17 Exhibit 20, # 18 Exhibit 21, # 19 Exhibit 22, # 20 Exhibit 23, # 21 Exhibit 24, # 22 Exhibit 25, # 23 Exhibit 26, # 24 Exhibit 27, # 25 Exhibit 28, # 26 Exhibit 29, # 27 Exhibit 30)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
164 NOTICE of Intent to File Reply Briefs by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks re 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
165 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green re 163 Response,, Notice of Manual Filing (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 18 of 19

11/03/2016
11/04/2016 11/04/2016 11/04/2016
11/07/2016 11/09/2016
12/02/2016 12/02/2016 01/31/2017
03/21/2017
03/21/2017 03/29/2017
04/20/2017 04/20/2017 06/15/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017

166 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses, 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. Responses due by 11/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
167 AFFIDAVIT re 163 Response,, Amended Document 163−22 by Darius Ishun Green. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
168 ORDER granting 166 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Responses due by 12/2/2016. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/4/16. (cmr) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
169 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : December 15−16 2016, December 19−23 2016, December 26−30 2016, January 2−6 2017 by Darius Ishun Green. Responses due by 11/21/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
MOTIONS REFERRED: 169 MOTION for Leave of Absence as to Darius Ishun Green for dates of : December 15−16 2016, December 19−23 2016, December 26−30 2016, January 2−6 2017. (jrb) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
NOTICE of Manual Filing of 2 cds containing audio interviews that are exhibits for docket entry 163 Response. Disk 1 − CD containing Darius Green Interview Audio, Disk 2 − CD containing Daryl Ricard Interview Audio. CD's sent to Augusta Court for LW. (wwp) Modified on 11/9/2016 (wwp). (Entered: 11/09/2016)
170 REPLY to Response to Motion re 134 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses Testimony filed by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
171 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal from the Middle District)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
172 NOTICE of Filing by Darius Ishun Green re 163 Response,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 25 of Plaintiffs Response To Defendants Statement Of Material Facts In Support Of Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment − Sexual Assault Charts for RSP)(Williams, Mario) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
173 ORDER granting 131 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 134 Motion in Limine. The Clerk is directed to close this case and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/21/17. (cmr) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
174 CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Brad Hooks, John Brown, Torie Grubbs and against Darius Ishun Green in accordance with the order of this Court dated 3/21/17. Signed by deputy clerk on 3/21/17. (cmr) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
175 BILL OF COSTS by John Brown, Torie Grubbs, Brad Hooks. (Attachments: # 1 Briefs, # 2 Exhibit A, Court Reporter Invoices, # 3 Exhibit B, Invoices related to deposition of Joel Lamont Reid, # 4 Exhibit C, Transcription Invoice, # 5 Exhibit D, Order allowing Plaintiff's legal name change)(Hirsch, Michelle) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
176 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 173 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion in Limine by Darius Ishun Green. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 113J−2148803. (Williams, Mario) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 176 Notice of Appeal, 173 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion in Limine, 174 Clerk's Judgment. (jlm) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
F.R.A.P. Certificate of Readiness re 176 Notice of Appeal. The entire record on appeal is available electronically. (jlm) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
177 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Georgia Department of Corrections. Responses due by 8/9/2017. (Drolet, Joseph) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
178 NOTICE of Appearance by Tina M. Piper on behalf of Georgia Department of Corrections (Piper, Tina) (Entered: 07/26/2017)

Case: 6:14-cv-46 As of: 02/22/2020 02:14 PM EST 19 of 19

07/31/2017 01/13/2020 02/05/2020

179 ORDER granting 177 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Joseph J. Drolet terminated. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/31/2017. (pts) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
180 Appeal Opinion re 176 Notice of Appeal : Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Darius Ishun Green. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non−Published. Opinion method: Signed. (jrb) Modified on 1/15/2020 (evk). (Entered: 01/13/2020)
181 MANDATE of USCA as to 176 Notice of Appeal filed by Darius Ishun Green. JUDGMENT is hereby entered ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this Court. (loh) (Entered: 02/05/2020)

 
  
 Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 1 of 34
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-11785
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00046-JRH-GRS DARIUS ISHUN GREEN,
Plaintiff–Appellant, versus WARDEN BRAD HOOKS, DEPUTY WARDEN JOHN BROWN, LIEUTENANT TORIE GRUBBS, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
(January 6, 2019) Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge:

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 2 of 34
After being sexually assaulted by a fellow inmate at Rodgers State Prison, Darius Green brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) employees Warden Bradley Hooks, Deputy Warden of Security John Brown, and Lieutenant Torie Grubbs (collectively, “the prison officials”). First, Green asserted that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm against Green, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Second, under a theory of supervisory liability, Green alleged that the prison officials proximately caused Green’s injuries.1
The prison officials filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they did not violate the Constitution and that they were nevertheless immune from suit because they are entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials, finding that no constitutional violation had occurred. The district court also dismissed Green’s supervisory liability claims. Alternatively, the district court found that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Green appealed.
After careful review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the prison officials.
1 Green also initially brought a conspiracy claim against Lieutenant Grubbs, but later abandoned it.
2

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 3 of 34
I. BACKGROUND 1. Facts Darius Green is transgender.2 Born biologically male, Green identifies with the female gender. Green has been taking hormone replacement therapy since age 17, has breasts, and maintains a feminine appearance.3 On May 10, 2012, Green formally entered the GDC through a standard intake procedure performed at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (“GDCP”). Here, inmates undergo housing and classification prior to their placement in the Georgia prison system. The process takes into account the inmate’s criminal history; individual characteristics; and treatment needs, including an inmate’s medical and mental health needs. The intake process also provides an initial security classification, which is a comprehensive measure of risk that impacts an inmate’s housing assignment, levels of supervision, and work detail assignment.4 Green’s
2 Because Green’s counsel, counsel for Defendants-Appellants, and the district court have exclusively used the feminine pronoun to refer to Green, for clarity, we will also do so. 3 However, when entering the GDC on May 10, 2012, Green was not taking hormone replacement therapy (“HRT”). In fact, Green had not been taking HRT for approximately eight months prior to arrival at the GDC and did not receive HRT until after transfer to Rodgers State Prison. Because Green did not arrive at Rodgers State Prison until July 2012, it appears that Green was not on HRT for approximately 11 months prior to arriving at Rodgers. 4 Factors include: severity of the current offense, severity of prior offenses, history of escape, history of institutional violence, along with any information regarding gang affiliation and activities.
3

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 4 of 34
intake resulted in a minimum-security classification and a finding that Green was fit for housing in the general population of male prisoners.
GDCP also screens inmates in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), 28 C.F.R. § 115 et seq., to determine if they are at risk of being either a sexual victim or a sexual aggressor. PREA screening considers a variety of relevant factors, including whether an inmate has a disability; an inmate’s age, physical build, incarceration history, criminal history, and prior experiences of sexual victimization; an inmate’s actual and/or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity; and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability. See generally id. § 115.41(d). When assessing inmates for risk of being sexually abusive to others, PREA screening also considers “prior acts of sexual abuse, prior convictions for violent offenses, and history of prior institutional violence or sexual abuse, as known to the agency.” Id. § 115.41(e). Green was not designated as a PREA victim or as a PREA aggressor. Green also received institutional orientation, including PREA orientation, and was informed about how to make a report of sexual assault.
On July 19, 2012, Green was transferred to Rodgers State Prison (“Rodgers”). Rodgers is a medium-security facility for male felons and houses approximately 1,500 inmates in six buildings (Buildings A through H). Green, at all times relevant to this case, was placed in Building A, which was comprised of four dormitories
4

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 5 of 34
(A1, A2, A3, and A4). A1 was a general population dormitory, while A3 and A4 were used for Administrative Segregation housing.
A1 housed inmates that were generally well-behaved, and all inmates were cleared to live with each inmate in the dormitory. Although there were inmates with different security classifications in A1, both medium and minimum security inmates are deemed capable of abiding by rules and regulations of the prison.5 Inmates of differing security levels are routinely housed together, and this practice is not prohibited by PREA.
A1 was made up of two halls with two bedrooms per hall; each bedroom contained eight bunkbeds, housing a total of sixteen inmates per bedroom. A1 also had a television room and day room. The open format of A1 allowed for free roaming throughout the bedrooms, and prison security officers were not continuously present in the dormitory. Every day, officers conducted multiple “official counts” of inmates, entered A1 to deliver mail, conducted “census counts,” and monitored the hallways and common areas via the A-dormitory control room. Although the rooms in A1 had locks, the rooms were not locked during lights-out.
In contrast, Administrative Segregation units A3 and A4 were comprised of single- and double-occupancy rooms. Inmates in Administrative Segregation were
5 Green had a minimum-security classification and her assailant, Darryl Ricard, had a medium classification.
5

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 6 of 34
housed there for a variety of reasons: disciplinary purposes, pending investigation, pending protective custody review, protective custody, medical observation, and pending initial institutional classification. Prison policy required A3 and A4 security officers to perform security and safety checks every thirty minutes.
Upon arriving at Rodgers, Green was subjected to a strip search and was required to strip in front of the guards and other inmates who were being processed at the same time, which exposed her breasts to the individuals in the room. After processing at Rodgers, Green was placed in Administrative Segregation in A4 because of a bed shortage in general population. Green’s institutional status at that time was designated as “pending reassignment,” which is the status typically given when there is not enough bed space and an inmate is awaiting return to general population. Although Green’s placement in A4 should have generated an initial assignment memorandum, this memorandum is missing.
After four days in Administrative Segregation, Green was transferred to A1 to be housed with the general population. The A1 unit generally housed inmates who were not considered to be problem inmates.
On Green’s first day in A1, inmate Darryl Ricard approached Green to offer protection. Ricard identified himself as one of the nation’s highest-ranking members of the Vice Lord gang. Ricard was serving a life sentence without parole for aggravated child molestation, aggravated assault, rape, and kidnapping of a child in
6

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 7 of 34
retaliation for her father’s unpaid debts. Ricard’s security classification was medium, and he was deemed appropriate for general population housing. Despite his rape and molestation convictions, Ricard’s PREA screening did not designate him as a PREA victim or a PREA aggressor.6
Ricard told Green he was looking for a friend, and Green acquiesced. It is undisputed that the initial encounter and proffered arrangement was unthreatening and non-coercive. However, within the next two weeks, Ricard demanded Green perform oral sex upon him. Green initially resisted, but Ricard threatened Green with prison weapons,7 physically assaulted Green in the bathroom, and threatened further bodily harm if Green refused to perform the demanded sexual acts. Ricard also threatened to have Green harmed if Green transferred to another dormitory. Green’s testimony indicates that she relented to Ricard’s demands out of fear. Ricard disputes Green’s testimony, and claims that he was Green’s prison “husband,” all sexual acts were consensual, and that Green admitted to Ricard she was setting him up so she could fabricate a lawsuit against Rodgers.
6 Under PREA, a sexual abuse act or prior rape conviction does not automatically result in an inmate being labeled a “sexual aggressor.” 7 Green said Ricard “went berserk” and “went in his room, and brought a shank [a homemade knife] and a belt with a lock on it” to threaten Green.
7

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 8 of 34
On August 24, 2012, Green sent the following letter to her mother, Lisa
Weaver (reproduced as written):
Hello Mother, how are you? I am writing you now on an emergency basis I am in big need of help and it is life or death at this current time my life – is in great danger, listen I need for you to get me the address to the Dept of Correction, the address to the Commissoner the directors of the GA Department of Corrections something somebody I can write to get me an immediate transfer. I have to get transfered from this camp mother ASAP I don’t want to go to the hole or P.C. unless it is absolutely necessary I have control of the situation for now but once I dont I might be seriously hurt or killed I am very scared but I am playing my part This is VERY Important I need those addresses ASAP I will explain the situation later Love you poohbear
Upon receiving this letter, Green’s mother called Warden Bradley Hooks and
informed him of the letter. On the same day—August 28, 2012—Warden Hooks
had Green escorted to his office for a meeting. Deputy Warden John Brown was
also in attendance. Although some specifics from that meeting are disputed,8 it is
undisputed that Green:
• Told Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown that she “was okay” • Never said she was in danger • Never disclosed that she was being sexually assaulted • Never disclosed that she was being sexually harassed • Never mentioned Darryl Ricard’s name
8 Warden Hooks testified that he asked Green whether she was in any danger or wanted protective custody, but Green denies that Warden Hooks specifically asked about protective custody. Although this fact is disputed, it is not material to our inquiry, given the plethora of undisputed facts supporting Warden Hooks’s inquiry into Green’s safety.
8

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 9 of 34
• Never admitted to being uncomfortable in A1 • Never asked to be moved to a different building • Never asked to be moved to a different camp • Never asked to be moved into protective custody Furthermore, Green admits to telling Warden Hooks, “I was okay[,] because I did not want to alarm him into investigating or making me have to tell him exactly what was going on.”
In response to Green’s statements that everything was “okay,” Warden Hooks replied, “Well, I don’t believe you. Your mother’s calling saying this and that.” Warden Hooks then called Green’s mother directly and gave Green the opportunity to speak to her on the phone. Warden Hooks also spoke with Green’s mother, relaying Green’s statements that Green was okay and that there were no problems.
Green later said these denials stemmed from being scared, as Ricard had repeatedly threatened serious harm to Green if she resisted.9 However, Green also testified that she would never have disclosed the information to officials—even if her mother had provided the requested addresses of GDC officials, stating: “I never would have told them what was going on. I just wanted to write them to see if they could help me without having to tell on [Ricard] or tell what was going on so that I
9 During Green’s Incident Report interview, made following Ricard’s assault of Green on September 22, 2012, Green detailed the threats and said Ricard had threatened to “find people” who could hurt Green if Green moved buildings or to beat Green so badly she would have to be “put [] on a life flight.”
9

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 10 of 34
wouldn’t receive any retaliation from him because I was hoping that they would be able to help me without having to tell them what was going on.”
After the phone call, Warden Hooks gave Green a piece of paper to take with her so other inmates would not be suspicious of Green’s meeting with the Warden.
Following the meeting with Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown, Green allegedly wrote a letter to Warden Hooks in early-to-mid-September 2012, raising general grievances with the prison’s building design. In this letter, Green did not mention Ricard or the sexual acts Ricard was forcing Green to perform. Instead Green lodged a more general complaint that Rodgers was not conducive to transgender inmates. Specifically, Green identified the open showers, open dormitory, toilets without locks, and A1’s general policy of not locking doors as being inappropriate for transgender inmates. In this letter, Green asked to be transferred. Green wrote the letter, placed it in an envelope addressed to Warden Hooks, and placed it in the prison mailbox. Warden Hooks denied receiving or reading the letter.
Later that month, on September 17, 2012, Green allegedly wrote another letter, this time to Deputy Warden Brown. The letter identified Ricard as Green’s abuser and asked Deputy Warden Brown to handle the matter confidentially. In this letter, Green told Deputy Warden Brown that Ricard was forcing Green to perform oral sex on him. Green placed the letter in an envelope, wrote “confidential, urgent
10

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 11 of 34
– urgent confidential correspondence” on the outside, addressed it to “deputy warden of security,” and placed it in the prison mailbox. Deputy Warden Brown denied ever receiving or reading the letter.
On September 20, 2012, three days after Green wrote the letter to Deputy Warden Brown, Green and two other inmates were forced to exit A1. In prison jargon, Green and the others were “put on the door,” a phrase that refers to being expelled from the dormitory by the other inmates in the dormitory and being forced to stand on the outside of the dormitory door. According to Green, the three inmates were “put on the door” because the inmates of A1 were tired of having openly homosexual inmates in the dormitory. Green was relieved to be leaving A1 and viewed this occurrence as a chance to escape Ricard. But, upon hearing that Green and the two other inmates were being “put on the door,” Ricard joined them on the door in solidarity. Together, the four inmates exited the dormitory and waited near the control room of the A Building.
Lieutenant Torie Grubbs received a report that several inmates had been “put on the door” and went to retrieve them. The inmates requested protective custody, telling Lieutenant Grubbs that they had been asked to leave. Green told Lieutenant Grubbs that she feared for her life as a transgender inmate, and Ricard told Lieutenant Grubbs that he feared for his life because he stood up for the homosexual inmates. Upon hearing this, Lieutenant Grubbs escorted the exiled inmates to
11

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 12 of 34
Administrative Segregation and placed all four inmates on “protective custody review” status.10 The only contact Lieutenant Grubbs had with the inmates who were “on the door” was when Grubbs escorted them from the door of A1 to the Administrative Segregation area. Lieutenant Grubbs told another officer to place the inmates in Administration Segregation cells but did not make the cell assignments. A different officer escorted the inmates into the Administrative Segregation building.
Another officer (not Lieutenant Grubbs) then escorted Green to the shower room of the A4 dormitory, while a different officer (also not Grubbs) escorted Ricard to a cell in the A3 dormitory. Ricard was placed in Cell 22, Bed 44 in the A3 dormitory, which was a double-occupancy room.
From 11:00 p.m. on September 20, 2012, until 4:00 a.m. the following morning, Green waited in the shower room of A4 dormitory. During this time, Green made no mention of Ricard at all, but instead wrote a statement outlining the experience of being “put on the door” and noting that “now A building is putting open homosexual/trans-gender inmates on the door only F building is allowing open homosexual on the door for now. This camp openly discriminate against open
10 This status is given to inmates awaiting an assignment to protective custody. Inmates seeking voluntary protective custody are asked to identify a specific threat justifying protective custody placement. A Classification Committee then reviews an inmate’s request for voluntary protective custody and determines which placement is appropriate.
12

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 13 of 34
homosexual and they dont want us here.” While in the shower room, Green acknowledges that she made small talk with officers, but did not mention Ricard or that Green was being sexually assaulted, harassed, or otherwise threatened.
At approximately 4:00 a.m. on September 21, 2012, Green was escorted by an unknown officer (who was not Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, or Lieutenant Grubbs) to Cell 22, Bed 43 in the A3 dormitory. Ricard was already in the cell, which Green noticed when walking into the cell—but only after the officer had shut the door. Ricard allegedly told Green that he had gotten Lieutenant Grubbs to place Green in the cell with him.11 Ricard attempted to talk to Green, but Green demurred and went to sleep. Green then slept, undisturbed, for several hours.
While Green slumbered, Warden Hooks reviewed the Assignment Memos requesting voluntary protective custody for Green and Ricard. The matter was sent to the Classification Committee for review and recommendation. That same day, September 21, 2012, the Classification Committee recommended that both inmates be returned to general population. Warden Hooks approved the recommendations of the Classification Committee, but Ricard and Green were not moved immediately
11 Lieutenant Grubbs denied the allegation that Ricard had orchestrated Green’s placement in Cell 22, and Ricard denied it as well. Ricard admitted that he may have asked to be placed in the cell with Green, but also noted that Rodgers officials would have “had no reason not to. I mean, we wasn’t beefing or anything. They don’t just—the only times these people—the Administration pays attention to who they place in a cell is if me and this guy right here just got into a big ass fight. . . . And that’s the only reason that they would keep parties separated unless a PREA was, of course involved. Other than that, why would they separate us?”
13

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 14 of 34
because that day was not a day when routine inmate housing moves were typically made.
Upon awakening on September 21, 2012, Green told Ricard, “I don’t want to be around you anymore, you know, because, you know, I can’t deal with all the threats and all of the stuff that’s going on.” Ricard became distressed and agitated, and grabbed a razor blade. Ricard told Green he was tired of Green playing games with him. Ricard threatened Green with the razor blade, saying he would cut up Green’s face. Against Green’s will, Ricard then orally and anally sodomized Green. This assault occurred around midnight or 1 a.m. on September 22, 2012.
After the attack, Green secretly wrote a letter pleading for help. The letter stated “I’m being forced to have sex.” About thirty to sixty minutes after the assault, Green was able to slip the letter out through the cell door when Ricard was not looking. Soon after the letter was slipped through the door, an officer took the letter, opened the cell flap, and asked who wrote the letter. The officer then left. Approximately two minutes later, a sergeant arrived at the cell to find Ricard chasing Green around the cell with a razor blade. After the sergeant threatened to pepperspray Ricard through the cell flap, Ricard dropped the razor blade and was escorted out of the cell.
In response to Green’s allegation of sexual assault, the prison’s Sexual Assault Response Team conducted an investigation. This investigation began almost
14

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 15 of 34
immediately (mere hours after the assault occurred), and Green’s interview with an Internal Affairs Investigator took place at 12:30 p.m. on September 22, 2012. The investigation substantiated Green’s allegations of sexual assault.
Warden Hooks then referred the investigation to the GDC Internal Affairs Investigation unit, and a full investigation was conducted. Afterward, the Tattnall County District Attorney presented the case to two separate grand juries, in an attempt to indict Ricard. Both grand juries refused to indict.
2. Procedural History In May 2014, Green filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Lieutenant Grubbs were deliberately indifferent to Green’s safety, in violation of Green’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Green also sued other prison employees in Green v. Calhoun (“Green II”). The two cases were consolidated. Following discovery and by stipulation, certain defendants (including all Green II defendants) and other claims (including the conspiracy claim against Lieutenant Grubbs) were dismissed. Two claims against Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Lieutenant Grubbs survived dismissal: (1) Defendants violated Green’s Eighth and Fourteenth
15

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 16 of 34
Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and (2) Defendants are liable under the theory of supervisory liability.12
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Lieutenant Grubbs, holding that the Defendants did not violate any constitutional rights. The court also found that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Green’s supervisory-liability claims similarly failed because Defendants did not violate Green’s constitutional rights.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, “viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.” Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 341–42 (11th Cir. 2012)). In doing so, we determine “whether, viewing the record as it existed before the district court in the light most favorable to [Green], a genuine issue of material
12 Green’s complaint articulates the claims as follows: prison officials violated Green’s constitutional rights by “condoning and promoting unsafe prison conditions known to place transgender Green in substantial risk of physical injury; by showing deliberate indifference to actual physical injuries Defendants knew Green had suffered and thereby creating an environment that led to her actually being anally raped; and by showing deliberate indifference to Green being placed in a ‘protective-custody’ cell with an inmate Defendants (at the very least Grubbs . . . ) knew was Green’s sexual assailant.”
16

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 17 of 34
fact existed as to whether [the prison officials’] actions constituted deliberate
indifference” to Green. Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1996).13
“Where the evidence is circumstantial, a court may grant summary judgment
when it concludes that no reasonable jury may infer from the assumed facts the
conclusion upon which the non-movant’s claim rests.” Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of
Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 1996). “[M]ere conclusions and unsupported
factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.”
Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005). We will affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment “if we conclude that there is no genuine issue of
material fact—that is, if no ‘fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff
on the evidence presented.’” Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1331 (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).
We now turn to the issues raised on appeal. We consider whether Warden
Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, or Lieutenant Grubbs violated Green’s Eighth and
13 We “pause to emphasize attorneys’ obligations under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 generally and in the specific context of a qualified immunity appeal.” Johnson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 126 F.3d 1372, 1373 (11th Cir. 1997). Appellants must submit a brief containing “a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review . . . with appropriate references to the record.” See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6). These requirements are particularly pertinent in a qualified immunity appeal where the plaintiff is required to “carefully set out the facts which, if proven, would constitute violations of clearly established law on the part of each defendant.” Johnson, 126 F.3d at 1373.
Unfortunately, as was the case in the district court, Green has “made exceedingly difficult this Court’s task of determining what material facts are in genuine dispute.” On appeal, Green continues to “repeatedly mystif[y] the facts, confuse[] the timeline of the events, and make[] multiple unsupported assertions.”
17

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 18 of 34
Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and whether they are liable under the theory of supervisory liability.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the prison officials.
III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE CLAIM Green’s constitutional claim centers around the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”14 In particular, Green alleges that Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Lieutenant Grubbs knowingly ignored the substantial risk of danger to Green as a transgender inmate, thus subjecting Green to cruel and unusual punishment by allowing Green to be sexually assaulted by Ricard while in prison.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. See Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., Ga., 400 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2005). It is well settled that “the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993)). Although
14 The Eighth Amendment applies to convicted inmates, while a pretrial detainee’s constitutional rights arise from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs Cty., 400 F.3d 1313, 1318 n.13 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, only Green’s Eighth Amendment right is at issue here. Regardless, “the standards under the Fourteenth Amendment are identical to those under the Eighth.” Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007).
18

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 19 of 34
prison officials have a duty to protect a prisoner from violence by other prisoners, not “every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. “Rather, a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment [in the context of a failure to prevent harm] only ‘when a substantial risk of serious harm, of which the official is subjectively aware, exists and the official does not respond reasonably to the risk.’” Bowen v. Warden Baldwin State Prison, 826 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090, 1099 (11th Cir. 2014)); Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[a] prison official’s deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” (emphasis added)), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561-63 (2007)).
Thus, in order to survive summary judgment on her § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim, Green must “produce sufficient evidence of (1) a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that risk; and (3) causation.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “[D]eliberate indifference has three components: (1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence.” McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248,
19

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 20 of 34
1255 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Green must show that an objectively serious risk of harm existed and that the prison officials were subjectively aware of this risk of harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Subjective awareness requires that the prison officials “both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed], and [they] must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Under the Eighth Amendment, “an official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not . . . cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment.” Id. at 838 (emphasis added). In short, we will not find a prison official liable under the Eighth Amendment “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [they] must also draw the inference.’” Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1319–20).
Even if Green’s Eighth Amendment claim survives summary judgment, the prison officials argue that they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials15 like Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Lieutenant Grubbs “from liability for civil damages insofar as
15 For qualified immunity to apply, the government officials must be “acting within the scope of [their] discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.’” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Courson v. McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1487 (11th Cir. 1991)). In this case, it is undisputed that the prison officials were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, so the only question is whether “the official’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and [if] the constitutional right at issue was clearly established.” Id.
20

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 21 of 34
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Morris v. Town of Lexington, 748 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)).
Green’s Eighth Amendment arguments can be summarized as follows. First, the prison officials were subjectively aware of the substantial risk to Green’s safety as a transgender inmate placed in a general population dormitory. Second, Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown were aware of and disregarded the threats to Green’s safety that she identified in the letters Green sent to her mother, Warden Hooks, and Deputy Warden Brown. Third, Lieutenant Grubbs was aware of the threat Ricard posed to Green’s safety and acted with deliberate indifference by placing Green in a cell with Ricard. Lastly, the prison officials were aware of the general threat to Green’s safety posed by unsafe prison conditions at Rodgers. Green argues that, because the prison officials knew of and disregarded these various risks to her safety, the prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment. We address each of Green’s arguments in turn.
1. Green’s Placement in General Population Green alleges that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent when they placed Green in a general population dormitory, despite knowing that Green was transgender and initially sending her to Administrative Segregation when she arrived
21

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 22 of 34
at Rodgers. In support, she argues that her initial assignment in Administrative Segregation demonstrated the prison officials’ subjective knowledge of the risk posed by the general population dormitory to Green as a transgender inmate.
While it is undisputed that Green was initially sent to Administrative Segregation upon arrival at Rodgers, the only material evidence in the record demonstrates her placement there was due to a bed shortage, not because of a safety risk. The prison officials testified about the Rodgers intake process and the bed shortage at the time Green arrived at Rodgers, which resulted in her temporary placement in Administrative Segregation. Furthermore, Green admitted to a GDC investigator that she was placed in Administrative Segregation “for about four days” upon arrival at Rodgers because “[t]hey did not have bed space” in general population. Moreover, in Green’s written admissions pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Green confirmed that her statements to the investigator were truthful and accurate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a).16 Because Green’s Rule 36 admission has not been withdrawn or amended, it conclusively establishes that Green was initially housed in Administrative Segregation simply because there was a shortage of beds in general population housing. See Rule 36(b) (“A matter
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) states: “A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.”
22

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 23 of 34
admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended.”). Thus, Green may not now argue that a genuine dispute of fact exists with respect to why she was placed in Administrative Segregation. See United States v. 2204 Barbara Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 129-30 (11th Cir. 1992) (“Unless the party securing an admission [under Rule 36] can depend on its binding effect, he cannot safely avoid the expense of preparing to prove the very matters on which he has secured the admission, and the very purpose of the rule is defeated.” (quotations omitted)).
Green nonetheless asks us to disregard her Rule 36 admission as well as the other evidence and infer that the missing memorandum regarding the basis for the decision initially placing Green in Administrative Segregation, confirms Green’s version of the “central fact.” Specifically, Green argues that this missing memorandum would have established: (1) that the prison officials knew Green was transgender and (2) acknowledged the substantial risk to her safety by placing her in involuntary protective custody immediately upon her arrival. In short, Green wants an adverse inference based on the missing memorandum. Notwithstanding that Green’s assertions as to the contents of the missing memorandum are based on pure speculation, “an adverse inference is drawn from a party’s failure to preserve evidence only when the absence of that evidence is predicated on bad faith.” Bashir v. Amtrak, 119 F.3d 929, 931 (11th Cir. 1997). Green has presented no evidence of
23

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 24 of 34
bad faith and, as such, no adverse inference may be drawn from the memorandum’s absence.
To the extent that Green points to the mere fact of her placement in general population as evidence of deliberate indifference, the record does not support such an argument. It is undisputed that Green was screened and classified as a minimum-security prisoner, and she was not designated as a PREA victim or aggressor. The PREA screening took into account details like Green’s sexual orientation, gender orientation, and Green’s own perception of her vulnerability. Based on Green’s intake screening, officials had no reason to suspect that Green was in any particular danger of being sexually assaulted.17 Moreover, the record indicates that Green had been housed in general population when she was previously incarcerated. Thus, Green has failed to prove that officials were subjectively aware of any risk to Green’s safety simply by virtue of placing her in general population.
For these reasons, no reasonable jury could conclude that that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent when they placed Green in the general population dormitory.
17 Green also points to the fact that she was sexually assaulted by Ricard as proof that the risk she faced was substantial. But “[t]his argument does not hold up to logical scrutiny; it rests entirely on hindsight bias. The mere fact that an event takes place does not indicate how likely it was to occur. A risk calculation is a prospective determination of what might happen based upon events that have already occurred.” Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2015).
24

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 25 of 34
2. The meeting between Green, Warden Hooks, and Deputy Warden Brown18
Green also argues that Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown had subjective knowledge of the heightened risk to Green’s safety because they were aware of specific threats faced by Green. Green points to the letter she sent to her mother—which prompted her mother’s call to Warden Hooks—and to the subsequent meeting Green had with Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown about that letter, in order to establish the prison officials’ awareness of the risk.
It is undisputed that Green’s mother, upon receiving the letter from Green stating that her life was in “great danger,” immediately called Warden Hooks. Warden Hooks—the same day he received this call—sent for Green. Nevertheless, Green has failed to establish that the prison officials had any “subjective knowledge of” a risk to her safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 837; McElligott, 182 F.3d at 1255. It is undisputed that, during the private meeting with Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown, Green repeatedly denied being in any danger. Moreover, Green reiterated the denial when pressed by Warden Hooks and again explicitly denied being in danger while on the phone with her mother during the meeting. Green’s strenuous denials about being in danger effectively erased any “subjective
18 Given that Lieutenant Grubbs was not present for the meeting and played no part in returning Green to general population, no reasonable jury could find that Lieutenant Grubbs was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to Green that may have arisen from the meeting.
25

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 26 of 34
knowledge” that the prison officials might otherwise have had from the initial letter and the phone call from Green’s mother to Warden Hooks. Because Green reiterated that everything was “okay,” no reasonable jury could conclude that the prison officials “actually knew of a substantial risk that [a fellow inmate] would seriously harm” her. Caldwell v. Warden, 748 F.3d 1090, 1102 (11th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original).
But, Green argues, they should have known anyway. The prison officials should have disregarded Green’s denials at the meeting because “being a transgender person and being inside a facility like Rogers [sic] and being around people that are with violent offenses, whether it was Darryl Ricard or any other individual,” placed the officials on alert that Green was subject to a substantial risk of serious harm. In sum, Green asks us to infer that the prison officials must have known of this harm based on the letter Green sent to her mother and the fact that Green is a transgender inmate.
We disagree. An argument that “they should have known” is insufficient; Green must present evidence to “support a reasonable jury’s finding that [the prison officials] harbored a subjective awareness that [Green] was in serious danger.” Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1332; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838 (“[A]n official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not . . . cannot under our cases be condemned as the infliction of punishment.” (emphasis
26

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 27 of 34
added)). Having already determined that Green’s denials to Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown rebutted the danger alleged in the letter, Green’s status as a transgender inmate does not change our analysis. As explained above, based on Green’s intake screening, officials had no reason to suspect that Green was in any particular danger of being sexually assaulted.
Green also argues that her mere failure to identify her attacker by name should not shield the prison officials. In Rodriguez v. Secretary for Department of Corrections, we found that an inmate is not required to identify the individual who poses a threat so long as the inmate provides prison officials with other specific facts that put prison officials “on actual notice of a substantial risk of harm.” 508 F.3d 611, 621 (11th Cir. 2007). For instance, while not identifying a particular individual who posed a threat, Rodriguez informed prison officials: “(1) that he was a former Latin King who decided to renounce his membership; (2) that members of the Latin Kings had threatened to kill him when he returned to the compound in retaliation for his renunciation; (3) that the compound at [the prison] was heavily populated with Latin Kings; and (4) that, in order to prevent an attempt on his life, he needed either to be transferred to another institution or to be placed in protective custody.” Id. at 621. We concluded that based on this “specific information,” “a reasonable juror could find . . . that [the prison official] actually knew Rodriguez faced a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 621-22. But that is not the case here. Green did not
27

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 28 of 34
just fail to identify her attacker, she denied that she faced any threat of being attacked at all.
Green further alleges that, because Warden Hooks gave Green a piece of paper upon leaving the meeting, the prison officials knew about the risk of harm to Green. But the record indicates that Green was given a piece of paper to prevent suspicion by other inmates that she was a “snitch.” This action shows that Warden Hooks was subjectively aware of a different potential harm—the risk of physical harm to Green based on other inmates’ belief that she was a snitch—not that Warden Hooks was aware of the risk of sexual violence that Ricard posed to Green.19 Thus, the note does not support a finding that either official was deliberately indifferent to any potential harm Green faced from Ricard.
3. Green’s Letters to Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown20 Green also points to the letters she sent to Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown in September as evidence that the prison officials had subjective knowledge of the substantial risk of harm she faced. However, both Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown insist that they never received or read a letter from Green. Deputy Warden Brown, who was allegedly sent the only letter that expressly identified
19 Moreover, this action demonstrates that when Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown had knowledge or apprehension of potential danger, they took action to protect Green. 20 It is undisputed that Green never sent a letter to Lieutenant Grubbs.
28

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 29 of 34
Ricard as Green’s assailant, further stated that he would not have received such a letter without acting on it.
Green argues that the letters are entitled to a presumption of receipt under the classic “mailbox rule” doctrine. In so arguing, Green refers to the common-law doctrine that “has long recognized a rebuttable presumption that an item properly mailed was received by the addressee.” Konst v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 71 F.3d 850, 851 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Barnett v. Okeechobee Hosp., 283 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2002). Under this Circuit’s precedent, “[t]he ‘presumption of receipt’ arises upon proof that the item was properly addressed, had sufficient postage, and was deposited in the mail.” Konst, 71 F.3d at 851. Green asks us to extend this doctrine to the internal prison mail system at Rodgers and assume Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown received the letters.
We have not previously ruled on the applicability of the mailbox rule in the context of a prison mail system for internal mail within the prison. The record is entirely devoid, however, of any evidence about how internal mail is collected, sorted, and delivered at Rodgers; the timeliness and consistency with which mail is delivered; or the overall reliability of the system. Without any factual development as to how the Rodgers internal mail system operates, we cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the “mailbox rule” presumption to the Rodgers mail system.
29

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 30 of 34
Accordingly, on this record, we decline to extend the “mailbox rule” presumption requested by Green. We will not assume that because Green placed the letters in the internal prison mail system, the letters were delivered to and received by the prison officials prior to the assault. Consequently, those letters cannot serve as a basis for finding that Warden Hooks and Deputy Warden Brown were subjectively aware of any risk to Green.
4. Placement of Green in Cell 22 with Ricard Green argues that Lieutenant Grubbs was deliberately indifferent to the threat Ricard posed to Green’s safety by placing Ricard and Green in Cell 22 together. In support of this argument, Green alleges that Ricard told Green he had “arranged” for Lieutenant Grubbs to place them in the same cell. This allegation was corroborated by another inmate, Joel Reid, who testified that Ricard told him that he was going to speak to Lieutenant Grubbs and ensure that Ricard and Green were placed in the same cell in administrative segregation. Both Ricard and Lieutenant Grubbs, however, tell a distinctly different story. Although Ricard admitted that he may have asked to be placed in the cell with Green, he denied telling Green that he orchestrated the arrangement with Lieutenant Grubbs. Likewise, Lieutenant Grubbs denies that Ricard asked her to be placed in a cell with Green. Moreover, Lieutenant Grubbs denied making the cell assignments. Rather, she stated that she only escorted Green, Ricard, and the other inmates that
30

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 31 of 34
had been “put on the door” from the A1 dormitory to the Administrative Segregation housing unit, and then asked another officer to make the cell assignments.
Nevertheless, even assuming, arguendo, that Lieutenant Grubbs made the cell assignments and/or agreed to place Ricard in the same cell with Green, such action does not establish that Lieutenant Grubbs acted with deliberate indifference to Green’s safety because there is no evidence that Lieutenant Grubbs was aware of any threat posed by Ricard to Green. It is undisputed that Lieutenant Grubbs was not present at the meeting between Warden Hooks, Deputy Warden Brown, and Green during which Green’s letter to her mother was discussed. Green does not allege that she spoke to Lieutenant Grubbs about feeling threatened or being sexually assaulted. And, Lieutenant Grubbs confirmed that during her limited encounter with Green while escorting her to the Administrative Segregation unit, Green did not tell Lieutenant Grubbs that she was being sexually assaulted by anyone, nor did Green relay any other specific threat. Accordingly, Green failed to produce enough evidence to survive summary judgment on this issue.
5. Allegations that Rodgers State Prison was exceedingly dangerous Green argues that, as a general matter, Rodgers was exceedingly dangerous and had high rates of sexual assault and violence. It is well established that an inmate has an Eighth Amendment right “to be reasonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault by his [or her] fellow inmates.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at
31

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 32 of 34
1320–21 (quoting Woodhous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973)). While “confinement in a prison where violence and terror reign is actionable,” id. at 220, “[w]e stress that [a] plaintiff . . . must show more than ‘a generalized awareness of risk.’” Caldwell, 748 F.3d at 1101. In order to show that a substantial risk of serious harm existed based on the general threat posed by inmate-on-inmate violence at Rodgers, Green must prove “that serious inmate-on-inmate violence was the norm or something close to it.” Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1322 (citation omitted).
In Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2014), we considered whether 33 incidents of inmate-on-inmate violence—four of which occurred in the same hallway where the assault of the plaintiff occurred—over the period of three and a half years in a prison housing 800-900 inmates created a substantial risk of serious harm, for purposes of § 1983 Eighth Amendment liability. We concluded that the evidence presented in that case was “hardly sufficient to demonstrate that [the institution] was a prison ‘where violence and terror reign.’” Id. at 1300 (quoting Purcell, 400 F.3d at 1320).
Here, the record in this case does not support Green’s claim. There is evidence that 28 reported incidents of sexual assault occurred over five years at Rodgers, which had a prison population of 1,500 inmates. While sexual assault is terrible, under our precedent, these numbers do not rise to the level of demonstrating that Rodgers was “a prison ‘where violence and terror reigned.’” Id. Indeed, Green has
32

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 33 of 34
pointed to fewer instances of sexual violence reported over a longer period of time at Rodgers, in an even larger facility than the prison in Harrison. Nor has Green pointed to any evidence that specific features of Rodgers21 or its population22 render it particularly dangerous. Because Green has failed to offer evidence of pervasive staffing issues, logistical issues, or other risks posed by the prison population in Rodgers, we cannot say that Green has proven that the conditions at Rodgers posed a substantial risk of serious harm.
* * *
Ultimately, we conclude that no genuine issues of material fact remain with respect to Green’s deliberate indifference Eighth Amendment claim because the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of Green.
21 For example, pervasive staffing issues or logistics issues that prevent prison officials from addressing violence may support a claim of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. See, e.g., Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302, 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2016) (allegations that only one officer supervised two separate dorms and that inmates regularly brought back weapons from their work detail, fashioned weapons from prison materials—and officials did not confiscate weapons sufficiently set out a substantial risk of serious harm); Hale, 50 F.3d at 1582–83 (evidence that defendant was aware of severe overcrowding problems and the fact that “inmate-on-inmate violence occurred regularly when the jail was overcrowded” was sufficient to withstand summary judgment). 22 See Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1355–56, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2003) (prison population of mentally ill inmates who were kept in unlocked cells and they could interact with each other was sufficient to prove potential knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm when the guards were aware of an inmate’s history of violent schizophrenic outbursts).
33

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 34 of 34
Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1331 (quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We affirm the district court’s order finding no constitutional violation.23
IV. SUPERVISORY LIABILITY CLAIMS “It is well established in this Circuit that supervisory officials are not liable under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hartley v. Parnell, 193 F.3d 1263, 1269 (11th Cir. 1999)). Simply put, “there can be no supervisory liability . . . if there was no underlying constitutional violation.” Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gish v. Thomas, 516 F.3d 952, 955 (11th Cir. 2008). Because Green failed to allege a constitutional violation, her supervisory-liability claims cannot stand.
V. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. AFFIRMED.
23 Because we find that no constitutional violation occurred, we need not address the prison officials’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
34

Case: 17-11785 Date Filed: 01/06/2020 Page: 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

David J. Smith Clerk of Court

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
January 06, 2020

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES
Appeal Number: 17-11785-GG Case Style: Darius Green v. Brad Hooks, et al District Court Docket No: 6:14-cv-00046-JRH-GRS

For rules and forms visit www.ca11.uscourts.gov

This Court requires all counsel to file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system, unless exempted for good cause. Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with FRAP 41(b).
The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3.
Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See 11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 .
Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari (whichever is later) via the eVoucher system. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher system.
For questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number referenced in the signature block below. For all other questions, please call Joseph Caruso, GG at (404) 335-6177.
Sincerely,
DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court
Reply to: Jeff R. Patch Phone #: 404-335-6151

OPIN-1 Ntc of Issuance of Opinion