Cook v. Mildred Mitchell Bateman Hospital et al, No. 3:2015cv02172 - Document 24 (S.D.W. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 8 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees or Costs; denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 6 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 18 LETTER- FORM MOTIONS for Appointment of Counsel; denying Pla intiff's 19 and 20 MOTIONS for Hearing; directing the Clerk to add Thomas Sullivan as a defendant and to issue summonses to defendants Sullivan and Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital; directing the U. S. Marshals Service to serve the summonse s and other specified documents on the named defendants pursuant to Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; further directing that the recovery, if any, obtained in this action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs and fees taxed against the plaintiff and pay the balance to the plaintiff and his attorney, if any. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 11/2/2015. (cc: Plaintiff; U. S. Marshals Service) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cook v. Mildred Mitchell Bateman Hospital et al Doc. 24 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION JEFFERY T. COOK, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :15-cv-0 2 172 MILD RED MITCH ELL BATEMAN H OSPITAL, e t al., D e fe n d an ts . MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepaym ent of Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 8), Plaintiff’s Motions for the Appointm ent of Counsel, (ECF Nos. 6, 13, 15, 16, 18), and his Motions for a Hearing, (ECF Nos. 19, 20 ). On February 23, 20 15, Plaintiff filed a docum ent, which the Clerk interpreted as a com plaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On March 17, 20 15, the undersigned entered an Order advising Plaintiff that his filings did not state a decipherable claim , and instructing him to file an Am ended Com plaint to avoid a recom m endation of dism issal. (ECF No. 10 ). Since entry of the Order, Plaintiff has subm itted six additional docum ents setting forth his claim s. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 17, 21, 22, 23). In addition, he has filed the four above-m entioned m otions asking for the appointm ent of counsel and two m otions requesting a hearing. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s m otion to proceed in form a pauperis is GRAN TED ; his m otions for the appointm ent of counsel are D EN IED ; and 1 Dockets.Justia.com his m otions for a hearing are likewise D EN IED , as they are prem ature. I. Re le van t H is to ry The undersigned provides the following history, obtained by piecing together statem ents m ade by Plaintiff in the instant action as well as in his other civil actions, which are pending in both this Court and in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.1 In addition, the undersigned has reviewed docum ents obtained from Plaintiff’s underlying criminal action pending in Boone County, West Virginia.2 In Septem ber 20 11, Plaintiff J effery Cook (“Cook”) was indicted by a Boone County Grand J ury on charges of Burglary and Grand Larceny.3 On October 3, 20 11, the Circuit Court of Boone County entered an Order that found Cook incom petent to stand trial and “not substantially likely to obtain com petency.” Under West Virginia law: If at any point in [a proceeding to determ ine com petency to stand trial] the defendant is found not com petent to stand trial and is found not substantially likely to attain com petency, and if the defendant has been indicted or charged with a m isdem eanor or felony in which the m isdem eanor or felony does involve an act of violence against a person, then the court shall determ ine on the record the offense or offenses of which the person otherwise would have been convicted, and the m axim um sentence he or she could have received. A defendant shall rem ain under the court's jurisdiction until the expiration of the m axim um sentence unless the defendant attains com petency to stand trial and the crim inal charges reach resolution or the court dism isses the indictm ent or charge. The court shall order the defendant be com m itted to a m ental health facility designated by 1 In this Court, Plaintiff has filed a separate com plaint against Mildred Mitchell-Batem an Hospital and others arising out of his transfer from that facility to Colum bia Regional Care Center in Colum bia, South Carolina (Case No.: 3:15-cv-10 569). In the South Carolina District Court, Plaintiff has filed two actions. One action alleges neglect and abuse on the part of various South Carolina residents, including Columbia Regional Care Center (Case No.: 9:15-CV-2666-J MC-BM). In the second action, Plaintiff names only West Virginia defendants, including Mildred Mitchell-Batem an Hospital. (Case No.: 9:15-CV-3639-J MC-BM). 2 Plaintiff’s crim inal proceeding pending in Boone County, West Virginia has Case No. 11-F-117. 3 The undersigned takes judicial notice of pleadings and other docum ents filed in the above-referenced actions. See Philips v. Pitt Cnty . Mem 'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir.20 0 9); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir.1989). 2 the departm ent that is the least restrictive environm ent to m anage the defendant and that will allow for the protection of the public. Notice of the m axim um sentence period with an end date shall be provided to the m ental health facility. The court shall order a qualified forensic evaluator to conduct a dangerousness evaluation to include dangerousness risk factors to be com pleted within thirty days of adm ission to the m ental health facility and a report rendered to the court within ten business days of the com pletion of the evaluation. The m edical director of the m ental health facility shall provide the court a written clinical sum m ary report of the defendant's condition at least annually during the tim e of the court's jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction shall continue an additional ten days beyond any expiration to allow civil comm itm ent proceedings to be instituted by the prosecutor pursuant to article five of this chapter. The defendant shall then be im m ediately released from the facility unless civilly com m itted. W. Va. Code Ann. § 27-6A-3(h). Cook underwent additional testing in 20 12. On October 9, 20 12, the Boone Circuit Court placed Cook in the custody of the West Virginia Departm ent of Health and Hum an Services for com m itm ent to a m ental health facility. Cook was placed at Mildred Mitchell-Batem an Hospital, a state-operated psychiatric institution. On Septem ber 26, 20 14, the Circuit Court entered an Order granting a request that Cook be transferred, when feasible, from Mildred Mitchell-Batem an Hospital (“MMBH”) to Colum bia Regional Care Center (“CRCC”) in Colum bia, South Carolina. According to the Order, Cook’s transfer was required because “[e]quivalent facilities for the defendant are not available within the State of West Virginia; [i]nstitutional care in an out of State placem ent is in the best interest of the defendant and will not produce undue hardship.”4 The Circuit Court clarified the Order on October 9, 20 12, adding that the transfer was a ‘“Level 3’ placem ent to allow com m unity integration outings.” The Circuit Court noted that its jurisdiction over Cook did not end until J une 14, 20 25.5 4 State v. Cook, Case No. 11-F-117, entered Septem ber 26, 20 12, by the Circuit Court of Boone County. 5 State v. Cook, Case No. 11-F-117, entered October 9, 20 12, by the Circuit Court of Boone County. 3 On or about February 21, 20 15, Cook was collected by three correctional officers from South Carolina and taken from MMBH to CRCC. Two days later, Cook filed this lawsuit. After receiving the undersigned’s directive to am end his com plaint, Cook sent the Court a letter, (ECF No. 11), stating that he had filed a grievance at MMBH in April 20 14 over m ail that the facility allegedly lost. On April 6, 20 15, a second letter was received from Cook, expounding on his com plaints. (ECF No. 12). Cook stated that his rights were violated by MMBH’s inability to treat his m ental health needs. He added that his m ail was lost on several occasions, including a card that was sent to him with m oney enclosed. On that sam e date, a separate docum ent prepared by Cook was docketed, again describing the loss of his m ail in April 20 14. (ECF No. 13). A third docum ent supplied by Cook was also docketed on April 6, 20 15. (ECF No. 14). In this filing, Cook cryptically referred to a West Virginia statute regarding m iscellaneous offenses involving patients at a state hospital, indicating that he had proof of “all of it,” and asking for a lawyer to be appointed. (Id.). On J une 15, 20 15, Cook supplied supplem ental inform ation in support of his com plaint. (ECF No. 17). He stated that he “had about $ 6,0 0 0 ,” and com plained about the loss of his m ail. For the first tim e, Cook alleged that while he was at MMBH, an em ployee of the facility tried to sexually m olest him . (Id.). On that sam e day, Sm ith filed a typewritten statem ent indicating that during his transfer from West Virginia, his personal property—consisting of prescription glasses, Nike Shoes, and legal paperwork— were lost. (ECF No. 18). He also com plained that he needed his teeth fixed, but CRCC would not perform the repairs until it received approval from West Virginia. (Id.). On August 26, 20 15, Cook filed a m otion for a hearing and attached to it a “com plaint.” (ECF Nos. 20 , 20 -1). In this docum ent, Cook added as defendants Mr. Craig 4 Richardson, CEO of MMBH; Ms. Patty Fran, Assistant CEO; Charlie, the certified m ail clerk at MMBH, and Mr. Thom as Sullivan, the health care specialist at MMBH who was responsible for Cook’s care and supervision. (ECF No. 20 -1 at 3). Cook provided a detailed explanation of his claim s. First, he alleged that a letter addressed to him and containing $ 25.0 0 was delivered to a third party who did not give it to Cook. Therefore, Cook lost $ 25.0 0 . Second, Cook claim ed that Mr. Sullivan had violated a host of regulations in his treatm ent of Cook. Most troubling, Cook alleged that Mr. Sullivan propositioned him , m ade inappropriate sexual rem arks, and fondled and sexually abused him . According to Cook, Mr. Sullivan also threatened to retaliate against Cook for refusing the sexual advances. (Id. at 5-6). Cook asserted that his experiences at MMBH caused him to suffer setbacks in his m ental health treatm ent, physical abuse, fear, em barrassm ent, and hum iliation. Cook dem anded five m illion dollars in m onetary dam ages. (Id. at 7). On October 26 and 28, 20 15, Cook reiterated his charges against Mr. Sullivan. (ECF Nos. 22, 23). II. Mo tio n s With respect to Cook’s application to proceed in form a pauperis, the undersigned GRAN TS the m otion. (ECF No. 8). Cook is hereby perm itted to proceed without prepaym ent of costs and fees or the necessity of giving security therefor. The undersigned further GRAN TS Cook’s m otion to add Thom as Sullivan, health care supervisor at MMBH, as a defendant. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to am end the style of the case to add Mr. Sullivan. The Clerk shall issue sum m onses directed to Mildred MitchellBatem an Hospital and Mr. Thom as Sullivan, and provide them to the U.S. Marshals Service along with ECF Nos. 1, 7, 11, 12, 17, 20 , 20 -1, 21, 22, 23. The U. S. Marshals Service shall serve the sum m onses and other docum ents on the nam ed defendants pursuant to 5 Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further ORD ERED and N OTICED that the recovery, if any, obtained in this action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs and fees taxed against the plaintiff and pay the balance to the plaintiff and his attorney, if any. In regard to Cook’s m otions for the appointm ent of counsel, (ECF Nos. 6, 13, 15, 16, 18), the Court D EN IES them , without prejudice. In this type of civil action, Cook has no constitutional right to counsel. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides for the assignm ent of counsel in som e cases, usually exceptional circumstances m ust exist to m erit that assignm ent. Whether counsel should be assigned depends upon several factors, including (1) the type and com plexity of the case; (2) the ability of the litigant to adequately investigate and present his claim ; (3) the likelihood of success on the m erits of the application; and (4) the apparent need for an evidentiary hearing in order to resolve the case. See, e.g W hisenant v. Yuam , 739 F.2d 160 (4th Cir. 1984) (abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989)); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1994). The appointm ent of counsel rests within the discretion of the court. At this point in the proceedings, the need for counsel is not apparent. Cook has adequately explained the nature of his claim s, and the need for an evidentiary hearing or trial is uncertain. Moreover, it is too early to evaluate the likelihood that Cook will succeed on the m erits. Therefore, the appointm ent of counsel is not appropriate. Should the circum stances or complexion of the case change, the undersigned will re-evaluate the need to appoint counsel. Sim ilarly, the undersigned D EN IES Cook’s m otions for a hearing, because the m otions are prem ature. (ECF Nos. 19, 20 ). Once the defendants have been served and 6 have filed an answer to the complaint, the Court will conduct a status conference, if necessary. Co o k is h e re by re m in d e d o f h is o bligatio n u n d e r th e Lo cal Ru le s o f th is Co u rt to n o tify th e Cle rk o f Co u rt if Co o k h as an y ch an ge in h is co n tact in fo rm atio n . The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and the U. S. Marshals Service. EN TERED : Novem ber 2, 20 15 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
