Johnson v. Boyd

• Decision Date: 15 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 3:08CV00084 SWW/JTR.,3:08CV00084 SWW/JTR.
• Parties: Jonathon B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. Zane BOYD, Administrator, Crittenden County Detention Center, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

676 F.Supp.2d 800

Jonathon B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. Zane BOYD, Administrator, Crittenden County Detention Center, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:08CV00084 SWW/JTR.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division.

December 15, 2009.

Jonathan B. Johnson, Grady, AR, pro se.

Jeremy Michael Clifford McNabb, Janan Arnold Davis, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

ORDER

SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry # 76) is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART, such that: (a) Plaintiff shall PROCEED with his failure to protect and free exercise of religion claims against Defendants in their individual capacities only; and (b) all other claims are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.

2. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), than an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED PARTIAL DISPOSITION

J. THOMAS RAY, United States Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended partial disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the United States District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a "Statement of Necessity" that sets forth the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge.

From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

Clerk, United States District Court Jonesboro Divisional Office 615 South Main, Room 312 Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, Jonathon B. Johnson, alleges in this pro se § 1983 action that Defendants violated his constitutional rights while was incarcerated at the Crittenden County Detention Center ("CCDC").¹ See docket entries # 2 and # 8. Specifically, he asserts that Defendants: (1) failed to protect him from being attacked by another inmate; (2) subjected him to inhumane and unsanitary conditions of confinement; (3) seized his Bible; (4) denied him phone, visitation, and mail privileges; and (5) failed to provide him with adequate medical care for asthma.² Id.

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, and a Statement of Facts. See docket entries # 76, # 77, and # 78. Plaintiff has filed a sworn Declaration, a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, a Statement of Disputed Facts, and Exhibits. See docket entries # 79, # 80, # 81, and # 82.

For the following reasons, the Court recommends that: (1) Plaintiff be allowed to proceed with his failure to protect and free exercise of religion claims against Defendants, in their individual capacities only; and (2) all other claims be dismissed, with prejudice.

II. Discussion

A. Failure to Exhaust

Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed, without prejudice, because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.³ See docket entries # 76, # 77, and # 78. However, Defendants have not offered any proof in support of their exhaustion argument. See Jones v Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (providing that an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proven by the defendants); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005) (same).

Further, Plaintiff states in his verified Complaint that Defendant Bonner prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies.⁴ See docket entry # 2; see also Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir.2003) (explaining that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies will be excused if the prisoner demonstrates that the defendants hindered his efforts to complete exhaustion); Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806, 808 (8th Cir. 2002) (explaining that "inmates cannot be held to the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA when prison officials have prevented them from exhausting their administrative remedies"). Defendants have not responded, in any way, to that contention. Thus, the Court concludes that Defendants have not satisfied their burden of establishing their failure to exhaust defense.

B. Failure to Protect Claim

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's failure to protect claim. As a threshold matter, the facts surrounding this claim are sharply disputed.

In his verified Complaint and sworn Declaration, Plaintiff alleges that, around 9:00 a.m. on November 30, 2007, Defendant Taylor purposefully unlocked the door to the cell that he was sharing with his cell mate, Glenn Bland. See docket entries # 2 and # 79. A few minutes later, inmate Antonio Wright opened the cell door and shot Plaintiff and Bland with a handgun he allegedly smuggled into the CCDC.⁵ Id.

Defendants have provided the Court with scant information on what they believed transpired on the morning of November 30, 2007.⁶ In their Statement of Undisputed Facts, Defendants state that Plaintiff and Bland told medical personnel that they did not know what had happened to them. See docket entry # 78. Additionally, Defendants explain that they found: (1) three "rounds" in the toilet and three "rounds" on the floor of Plaintiffs cell; and (2) a "Jennings J-22.22 caliber LR" handgun hidden in the CCDC shower area. See docket entry # 78 at ¶¶ 25-27.

Although it is not discussed in their summary judgment papers,⁷ Defendants have produced an undated investigation report prepared by Detective Voyles.⁸ See docket entry # 78, Ex. 6. In that report, Detective Voyles notes that Wright, the alleged shooter, and several other witnesses claimed that: (1) Plaintiff, Wright, and Bland planned the shooting in an attempt to escape and/or obtain monetary damages from the CCDC; and (2) Defendant Taylor was not involved in the incident.⁹ Id.

In contrast, Plaintiff and Bland told Detective Voyles that they were asleep when the shooting began, and that they had no idea who shot them. Id.

The United States Supreme Court has clarified that being assaulted by other inmates is not "part of the penalty that criminal offenders must pay for their offenses." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Thus, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires prison officials to "take reasonable measures to guarantee" inmate safety by protecting them from attacks by other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). However, prison officials do not commit a constitutional violation every time one prisoner attacks another. Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir.2007); Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir.2002). Instead, to establish a failure to protect claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that: (1) objectively, there was a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) subjectively, the defendants knew of and disregarded that substantial risk of serious harm. Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991, 995-996 (8th Cir.2007); Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir.2005).

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because they had no knowledge that Wright intended to harm Plaintiff, and that mere negligence in failing to detect the risk or prevent a gun from entering the CCDC is not a sufficient basis for imposing liability under § 1983.¹⁰ See docket entry # 77. However, this argument misconstrues the nature of Plaintiff's claim, and the conflicting facts in the record.

Plaintiff states in his verified Complaint and sworn Declaration that Defendant Taylor purposefully opened the door to his cell so that Wright could shoot him.¹¹ In contrast, Defendants have presented evidence suggesting that Plaintiff planned the incident, without any assistance from Defendant Taylor, or other CCDC officials. In light of these sharply disputed issues of material fact, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with his failure to protect...