United States District Court, D. Delaware
Kamilla Denise London, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Noreika, U.S. District Judge.
Kamilla Denise London (“Plaintiff), an inmate at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (“VCC”) in
Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.(D.I. 2). She appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 5, D.I. 7). The Court screened the original complaint
and dismissed several defendants. (D.I. 13, D.I. 14).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging violations of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq., as well as supplemental state claims. (D.I. 18).
The Court proceeds to review and screen the Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and §
27, 2019, the Court screened the original complaint and
dismissed Defendants Lt. Justin Atherhold
(“Atherhold”), Warden Dana Metzger
(“Metzger”), Shane Troxler
(“Troxler”), and Commissioner Perry Phelps
(“Phelps”). (D.I. 13, D.I. 14). The Court
determined that the original Complaint stated what appeared
to be a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Office
Brett Evans (“Evans”) and a Service Order issued.
(D.I. 14). On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint that was not dated or signed and, the next day,
Plaintiff was advised of the deficiency. (D.I. 15, D.I. 16).
resubmitted a signed, dated Amended Complaint on July 16,
2019. (D.I. 18). The Amended Complaint contains many of the
same claims, attempts to reinstate Atherhold, Metzger,
Troxler, and Phelps, and adds Defendants William Howard
(“Howard”), Matthew Stevenson
(“Stevenson”) and John Doe (“Doe”).
(D.I. 18). The Amended Complaint states that it incorporates
the original Complaint. (D.I. 18 ¶ 108). On September 25,
2019, Evans filed his waiver of service of summons executed.
alleges violations of the ADA because she is a transgender
person diagnosed with gender dysphoria and other serious
mental health conditions that are recognized by the ADA.
(D.I. 18 ¶ 2). The Amended Complaint also appears to add
new retaliation claims but, because the allegations either do
not name the individual(s) engaged in retaliatory conduct, do
not provide dates when the retaliation occurred, or refer to
claims previously settled by Plaintiff, it simply is not
clear. (D.I. 18 ¶¶ 52-57).
Amended Complaint alleges that in November 2018, Howard
refused to use the female pronoun when directly referring to
Plaintiff and, when Plaintiff asked Howard to follow policy
on how to address her, he “became incensed” and
filed a false incident report against Plaintiff.
(Id. ¶¶ 58-61 and pp. 22-23). A hearing
officer dismissed the charges and found Plaintiff “not
guilty.” (Id. ¶¶ 64-65 and p. 23).
Plaintiff filed a grievance and asked that Howard be
disciplined for filing a false report and retaliation and was
told the matter would be investigated. (Id.
¶¶ 63, 66-67). Plaintiff wrote “all the way
up to the Commissioner of DOC grieving” Howard's
misconduct, and alleges “no responses were
received.” (Id. ¶ 67).
Amended Complaint also adds more detail to the retaliation
claim against Evans. (Id. ¶¶ 70-80). The
Amended Complaint adds Doe based upon statements made by
Sergeant Nye (“Nye”) on March 22, 2019, that
someone called and told him that Evans needed to add sexual
misconduct to the March 18, 2019 write-up he gave to
Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 79-82 and pp. 24-26).
Plaintiff alleges that Doe's actions make him complicit
in Evans' retaliation against Plaintiff. (Id.
April 9, 2019, Plaintiff appeared at a disciplinary hearing
before hearing officer Stevenson to answer the charges filed
by Evans. (Id. ¶ 88). Plaintiff alleges that
the hearing was not held in a timely manner and that
Stevenson was “extremely biased, refused to produce
evidence, and did not allow Plaintiff to have her mental
health advocate present at the hearing.” (Id.
¶¶ 90-91). Plaintiff alleges that Stevenson stated,
“No matter what you say, I'm finding you
guilty.” (Id. ¶ 91). Plaintiff was found
guilty and sanctioned to five days LOAP (i.e., loss
of all privileges). (Id. at 25). Plaintiff appealed
the conviction, her appeal was granted, and the hearing
officer's decision was reversed. (Id.
¶¶ 93-95 and p. 26).
April 28, 2019, Plaintiff was again charged with sexual
misconduct. (Id. ¶¶ 96-97). Plaintiff
alleges the charge is a continuation of retaliatory conduct.
(Id. ¶ 98). The Amended Complaint does not
provide the name of the person who gave Plaintiff the
incident report, but describes witnesses to the sexual
misconduct as a group of officers who are close
“buddies” with Evans and interact with him during
daily shift changes. (Id. ¶ 104). Plaintiff was
transferred to administrative segregation and Stevenson found
Plaintiff guilty of the offense. (Id. ¶ 99).
The Amended Complaint does not indicate what, if any,
sanction Plaintiff received or whether Plaintiff remains
housed in administrative segregation. Plaintiff appealed.
(Id. ¶ 100). The Amended Complaint does not
provide the outcome of the appeal.
seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages.
(Id. at 9).