United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPEWLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael George Young, Jr., initiated this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action proceeding pro se as a pre-trial
detainee at the Lee County Jail. Plaintiff is proceeding on
his Amended Complaint (Doc. #56) filed October 26, 2016,
against the following defendants from the Lee County
Sheriff's Office: Sheriff Mike Scott, Colonel Thomas
Eberhard, Major James Baracco, Captain Kevin Koller, and
Captain Mia Rodgers in their official and individual
capacities. Doc. #56 at 3-4.
the “Statement of Claim” portion on the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff summarizes his claims against Defendants
In violating Mr. Young's First Amendment rights, Sheriff
Mike Scott's policies, rules, and procedures of
visitation violate Mr. Young's liberty interest to
intimate association with his daughter. They violated Florida
State law and Florida Model Jail standards of allowing all
persons held within [its] state prisons and county jail
systems visitation with their spouses, children, relatives,
and friends. This also a violation of due process of law and
equal protection rights of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
In violating Mr. Young's [Eighth] Amendment right,
Sheriff Mike Scott and his officers in charge of the
corrections and the care and well-being of Mr. Young and
denying him visitation without regard to his mental and
emotional stat[u]s. This is further compounded by the fact,
as show in in Exhibit “I” that the current system
has capabilities of being upgraded with software and hardware
at a [minimal] cost. The “Deliberate
Indifference” being shown to Mr. Young constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Young is also subjected
needlessly to the mental and emotional stresses of long term
separation from family and friends without hope of ever
seeing his daughter again, unless she can scrape up enough
money to come all the way to Fort Myers, Florida.
In violation of Mr. Young's [Fifth] and [Fourteenth]
Amendment rights, Sheriff Mike Scott and the other defendants
in charge of Mr. Young's care and well-being violated his
Substantive Due Process rights in not allowing some form of
hearing or other mediation method to find a solution for the
denial of visitation with his daughter. He has suffered cruel
and unusual punishment from the long term denial to see Ms.
Young and is suffering from mental and emotional anguish,
tensions, and stresses unjustly placed upon him. He suffers
from daily depressive episodes and mental hardships
needlessly due to this denial. His Equal Protection rights
are violated in the denial of allowing him the same rights,
privileges, and immunities that others enjoy during their
detainments. His liberty interest is violated in the denial
of his intimate association with Ms. Young.
Doc. #56 at 5-7. As relief Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Id.
move for summary judgment in an Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. #58) filed on November 2, 2016. Defendants
refer to the following exhibits in support of their motion:
Affidavit of Colonel Thomas Eberhardt (Doc. 58-1, Aff.
Eberhardt), Affidavit of Deputy First Class Bryon Haycook
(Doc. #58-2, Aff. Haycook), and a copy of the final criminal
judgment entered against Plaintiff in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit Court (Doc. #58-3).
argue that none of Plaintiff's allegations rise to the
level of a Constitutional violation. Doc. #58 at 7. Regarding
the visitation claim, Defendants recognize that pre-trial
detainees have a Constitutional right to reasonable
visitation. Id. at 8 (citing Jones v.
Diamond, 594 F.2d 997, 1013 (5th Cir 1979)). However,
Defendants argue that visitation may be limited when
necessary to preserve institutional security. Id.
Defendants argue that the Lee County Sheriff's policy
prohibiting Skype-style visitation was implemented to
preserve institutional security. Id. at 9.
support of the security argument, Defendants opine that if
inmates were permitted Skype visitation they could
“pass messages, plan escapes, or conduct gang related,
or other criminal activity” because the correctional
officials would lose the ability to control and supervise the
visitors visiting each inmate. Id. at 4 (Exh. A
¶ 8). Defendants further state that Skype visitation
would have a negative effect on security “as the secure
network could be compromised due to open connections outside
the firewalls.” Id. at 4 (citing Exh. A ¶
9). Defendants submit that the current video visitation
system is not compatible with Skype and the cost associated
with adding even one Skype portal would be $25, 580.00.
Id. at 5, 10; see also Aff. Haycook, Doc.
#58-2 at 2. Defendants explain that the current visitation
procedures allow standard video visitation and allow the Lee
County Sheriff's Office to control the number of
visitors, the identity of the visitors, the items a visitor
can bring with them to visitation, and the behavior of the
Eberhardt, Baracco, and Koller further argue that the Amended
Complaint does not allege they were personally involved in
the alleged Constitutional deprivations. Id. In
fact, Defendants point out that their names are not even
mentioned in the Amended Complaint. Id. Because
there is no affirmative causal connection between the
Defendants and the alleged Constitutional deprivations, they
move for summary judgment. Id.
Plaintiff being allotted additional time to respond to the
Defendants' amended motion in response to Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did not file an amended response
and the time to do so has long expired. See Doc.
#61. Considering Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court will consider Plaintiff's previous response (Doc.
#39) opposing Defendants' initial motion for summary
judgment because both motions are substantially the same.
Attached to Plaintiff's response is a document entitled
“Psychiatric opinions on visitation” (Doc.
response to Defendants' allegations that the Complaint
contains no allegations of personal involvement, Plaintiff
argues that all Defendants established the jail's
policies and procedures board. Doc. #39 at 13. Plaintiff
recognizes that Defendant Baracco's name is not mentioned
in the Complaint, but states he identified Baracco as a
defendant due to his position in the chain-of-command and his
long career with the Lee County Corrections Bureau.
Id. Plaintiff contends Defendants ...