Gulett v. Haines

• Decision Date: 14 June 2002
• Docket Number: Case No. C-3-99-447.
• Citation: 229 F.Supp.2d 806
• Parties: Morris Lynn GULETT, Plaintiff, v. Gary HAINES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

229 F.Supp.2d 806

Morris Lynn GULETT, Plaintiff, v. Gary HAINES, et al., Defendants.

Case No. C-3-99-447.

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

June 14, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles A. Smiley, Jr., Jeffery S. Rezabek Charles Smiley & Associates Dayton, OH, for Plaintiff.

Victor Terrell Whisman, John Alan Cumming, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Gregory Paul Dunsky, United States Attorney's Office, Dayton, OH, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 51); OVERRULING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 52); AND SUSTAINING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO FURTHER AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. # 56)

RICE, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Morris L. Gulett alleges in his First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 22) that certain of his rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the law of Ohio were violated while he was incarcerated in the Montgomery County (Ohio) Jail ("County Jail"). He named as Defendants Gary Haines, the late Montgomery County Sheriff,¹ Christopher Jolly,² a County Jail corrections officer, Kelvin S. Curry, a County Jail inmate, and multiple as-of-yet unidentified John Does. In Branch One of his First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated his right to contract, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In Branch Two, he claims that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In Branch Three, he alleges Defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. In Branches Four, Five, and Six, he sets forth state law claims for negligence, civil assault, and improper hiring and supervision, respectively, and in Branch Seven, he seeks punitive damages.

The Defendants and Plaintiff both have moved for summary judgment. (See Doc. # s 51 & 52.) Plaintiff has also moved to amend his First Amended Complaint in order to expressly name Officer Jolly in the pleadings of Branches Two, Three, and Four. (See Doc. # 56.)

I. Background Facts³

Plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana who was being held in the County Jail on and around September 13, 1997, pending trial on various criminal charges. (Gulett Aff., attached to Doc. # 52, ¶¶ 2 & 10.) At that time, he was sequestered in a segregated unit, or cellblock, of the County Jail, away from the general jail population, meaning that he had little contact with other prisoners. (Id. ¶ 6.) This was an eleven-cell cellblock, each cell housing a single inmate. (Id. ¶ 8.) In this particular cellblock, designated at the jail as E-4-S (Jolly Aff., attached to Doc. # 51 at Ex. D, ¶ 1), each inmate, at separate times, was allowed to spend one hour each day, alone, in the cellblock "range," an open corridor which ran the length of the cellblock. (Gulett Aff. ¶ 8.) In the range, the inmate could shower, talk on the telephone, exercise, or lounge and watch television. (Id.) Curry was in the same cellblock as the Plaintiff. (Jolly Admissions, attached to Pl.'s Memo. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. # 55), Answer No. 4.)⁴ An inmate's access to the range from his cell was controlled by an electro-mechanical device, the controls to which were operated exclusively by corrections officers at a location situated outside of the range. (Id., Answer Nos. 5, 6, & 7.)

According to Plaintiff, on September 13, 1997, Officer Jolly was in charge of cellblock E-4-S. (Gulett Aff. ¶ 15; Gulett Depo. at 44). During his hour in the range, Plaintiff heard the sound of a cell door opening. (Gulett Aff. ¶ 10.) Believing the sound to be coming from a neighboring cellblock, he was not alarmed, and did not turn around. (Id.) Thereafter, he alleges that he was beaten by one or more "attackers," whom he could not identify except to note that he (or they) was (were) black. (Id.) He managed to push a panic alarm button, and Officer Jolly responded to the scene. (Id.; Jolly Aff. ¶ 7; County Jail Incident Report of Sep. 13, 1997, attached to Flanagan Aff., attached to Doc. # 51 at Ex. B ("Incident Report").) As a result of the alleged beating, Plaintiff suffered a broken nose, damage to an eardrum, and other lacerations. (Gulett Aff. ¶¶ 11, 12, 13, & 14.)

While not denying that the Plaintiff's version of what transpired is plausible, Defendants point out that Curry told Officer Jolly, pursuant to the officer's follow-up investigation into the matter, that the Plaintiff had fallen on the floor and hit his head. (See Incident Report.) Still and all, Defendants also contend that the Plaintiff was asked if he would like to press charges against Curry,⁵ but that he refused (although he did not sign the "prosecute refusal form"). (See id.) Plaintiff disputes this fact, and claims that although he chose not to file a police report upon his discharge from the County Jail in March of 1998,⁶ he never refused the offer to prosecute while he was still in custody, and, in fact, he indicated to an officer that he did want to prosecute. (Gulett Depo. at 65.)

The basis for the Plaintiff's action against the Sheriff's Department is that other prisoners in cellblock E-4-S should not have been allowed into the range during his solitary hour, and that if one or more of them were so allowed, it must have been the result of a corrections officer allowing it to happen, as only corrections officers have access to the cell door locking controls. Defendants contend that even if it is true that Curry attacked the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's explanation of how it happened is not necessarily accurate. Lieutenant Robert Flanagan, the Housing Officer in charge of the County Jail, and the custodian of jail records, states that at least two other feasible explanations exist for how Curry could have attacked the Plaintiff without the assistance of a corrections officer. Under one scenario, the Plaintiff may have approached Curry's cell from the range, and gotten too close, such that Curry could have punched him in the face from within his cell. (Flanagan Aff. ¶ 7.) Under a second scenario, Lieutenant Flanagan states that it is not unheard of in cellblock E-4-S for an inmate to lodge a foreign object in the track of his cell door, preventing its complete closure and lockage, thus creating an unauthorized egress to the range. (Id. ¶ 8.)

In any event, after Officer Jolly responded to the panic alarm, he called for medical assistance, and transported the Plaintiff to the County Jail's medic's office for treatment. (Jolly Aff. ¶ 9; Gulett Aff. ¶ 11.) Jail medical records indicate that an outside physician, Dr. Devore, was contacted that same day, and advised that the Plaintiff's ear be kept dry. (Staff Progress Notes, attached to Flanagan Aff.)⁷ On September 15, 1997, an appointment for the Plaintiff to see Dr. Devore was scheduled for September 29, 1997. (Id.) Defendants contend that due to a conflict with a scheduled court appearance of the Plaintiff, the appointment with Dr. Devore was pushed back to October 7. (Id.) At that appointment, the Plaintiff was scheduled for an operation to re-break and reset his nose, which had begun to heal improperly. (Id.; Gulett Aff. ¶ 13.) The Plaintiff himself asserts that he was in pain for days after September 13, 1997, but that his repeated requests to be taken to a hospital for treatment were refused. (Gulett Aff. ¶ 12.) He states that he was not aware of the appointment scheduled for September 29, and that had he been, he would have attempted to reschedule his conflicting court appearance. (Id.) Furthermore, he stated in his deposition that he filed a grievance in protest of being denied speedier care. (Gulett Depo. at 33.) That grievance was answered several weeks later, but he was unable to recall what the County Jail's explanation was for not getting him in to a doctor sooner. (Id. at 34.)

Upon his release from the County Jail, the Plaintiff sought treatment from an ear, nose and throat specialist, Dr. Lawrence Danna. (Id. ¶ 14; Danna Aff., attached to Doc. # 55, ¶¶ 1 & 2.) Dr. Danna states that the Plaintiff has continuing ear and nose problems, due in part to a delay in receiving proper care. (Danna Aff. ¶ 2.) Among the problems identified by Dr. Danna are a ringing in the Plaintiff's ears which will likely be permanent, loss of hearing, a left nasal septal deviation which may require further surgery, and headaches. (Letters of April 24, 2001 & March 6, 2002, from Dr. Danna to Pl.'s counsel, attached to Danna Aff.)⁸

Plaintiff, who is white, believes that he was subjected to mistreatment in the County Jail by jail officials and other inmates because of his association with a white supremacy group (Gulett Aff. ¶ 7), and because the criminal charges on which he was being held included making threats against police officers. (Id.; see also Indictment of the Grand Jury of Montgomery County, Ohio, March 1, 1997 (filed on March 7, 1997), against Morris Lynn Gulett, Doc. # 51 at Ex. A.)⁹ He argues that as a ward, he was entitled to protection from other inmates whom jail officials should have known were likely to harbor malice toward him on account of his racist beliefs, and that this they failed to do. Arguing that there is complete lack of proof of wrongdoing on their part, Defendants Haines and Jolly move for summary judgment. Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment.

Previously, because Curry did not respond to his pleadings, the Plaintiff moved for, and the Court granted, default judgment as to Curry on liability alone. (Doc. # 47 & Notation Order of March 4, 2002.)

II. Standards Governing Motions for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Of course, the moving part...