Adc v. Kelley
| Decision Date | 23 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | 5:15CV00075 JLH/JTR |
| Parties | PATRIC PATTERSON ADC #107498 PLAINTIFF v. WENDY KELLEY, Deputy Director, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
The following Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
In this pro se § 1983 action, Plaintiff, Patric Patterson ("Patterson") alleges that, while he was incarcerated in the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"), Defendants Kennie Bolden, Jeremy Andrews, Lt. Willie Bankston, Richard Mazzanti, Sgt. Christie Simpson, and Capt. Anthony Bradley (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Defendants"), violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from being attacked by another prisoner on March 16, 2014.1 Doc. 1.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, and a Statement of Undisputed Facts.2 Docs. 71, 72 & 73. Patterson has filed a Response. Doc. 77.
Before reaching the merits of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will review the relevant undisputed facts giving rise to Patterson's claims:
1. In March of 2014, Patterson was housed in Barracks 13, Zone 2 in the Varner Unit. This is an "open barracks" and, at that time, it housed approximately 54 inmates. Doc. 71, Ex. D at 35 & 43; Ex. E ¶ 3.
2. Inmate Michael Black was also housed in Barracks 13. AlthoughPatterson and Black both lived in Barracks 13, they "did not associate with one another." Id., Ex. D at 36; Doc. 77 at 68.
3. At the time of the March 16, 2014 attack, Patterson knew that the ADC had a procedure that allowed prisoners to list other inmates on their "enemy alert list." Prior to the March 16 attack, Patterson had not placed Black on his enemy alert list and he never asked to be separated from him.3 Doc. 71, Ex. C, Ex. D at 36, Ex. E ¶¶ 4 & 6.
4. According to Patterson, about 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2014, he and Black had an altercation in the barracks. Patterson subdued Black, who then said "ok it's over." Id., Ex. A. According to Patterson, he took Black at his word that the incident was "over." Because Patterson knew that prison "snitches get hurt," he did not make a report or alert any correctional officer about the incident with Black.4 Id., Ex. D at 36 & 40.
5. When Patterson went to bed at approximately 11:00 p.m. on the night of March 15, 2014, he believed everything was resolved with Black. Id., Ex. A, Ex. D at28 & 40.
6. At 3:27 a.m. on March 16, 2014, without any warning, Black assaulted Patterson in his bunk, kicking him and hitting him by swinging a laundry bag that contained a boot. Most of Black's blows struck Patterson in the face. Id., Exs. A, B & F;5 Doc. 77, Ex. 7B.
7. At 3:38 a.m., Patterson walked from his bunk to the control booth, where he tapped on the window to alert Defendant Richard Mazzanti, the correctional officer on duty. Doc. 71, Ex. F; Doc. 77, Exs. 3, 7A, 7B & 10.
8. Mazzanti immediately called for assistance. At 3:40 a.m., six officers entered the barracks, where they determined that Black was responsible for Patterson's injuries. At 3:45 a.m., the officers handcuffed Black. At 3:55 a.m., they removed him from the barracks. Doc. 71, Exs. B, E ¶ 9 & F; Doc. 77, Exs. 3 & 7B.
9. Patterson was provided medical care at the prison but, due to the seriousness of his injuries, he was soon transported by ambulance to the Jefferson County Regional Medical Center. Doc. 71, Ex. E ¶ 10. As a result of his injuries, Patterson lost his left eye. Id., Ex. D at 47-48.
10. After the March 16, 2014 attack, Patterson was transferred to anotherunit. Black was issued a major disciplinary violation and was added to Patterson's enemy alert notification list. Being placed on this list meant that Black and Patterson would never be housed together in the future. Id., Ex. B, Ex. D at 33, Ex. E ¶ 3.
11. At the time of the March 16, 2014 attack, Defendant Andrews was the deputy warden of the Varner Unit; Defendant Bolden was a major at the Varner Unit; Defendants Bankston and Bradley were shift supervisors at the Varner Unit; Defendant Simpson was the sergeant assigned to Barracks 7-14 at the Varner Unit; and Defendant Mazzanti was the correctional officer assigned to Barracks 13 and 14. Id., Ex. D at 25-26, 29 & 32-33; Doc. 77, Ex. 7B.
12. During the March 16, 2014 attack, none of the Defendants was present in Barracks 13; none of them witnessed the assault; and none of them participated in or encouraged the assault. Doc. 71, Ex. D at 25-30, 32-33, 49, Ex. E ¶ 9, & Ex. F; Doc. 77, Exs. 3 & 6.
13. Under Varner Unit staffing guidelines in effect in March of 2014, one officer oversees Barracks 13 and 14. The ends of Barracks 13 and 14 are in alignment with each other, with the control booth located between them so that the officer on duty can observe both barracks. The duty officer normally is in or around the control booth. A hallway runs down one side of Barracks 13 and 14. The walls of Barracks 13 and 14 that parallel the hallway are made of glass to allow an officer walking thehallway to see inside both barracks. The duty officer for Barracks 13 and 14 is also responsible for monitoring the hallway outside the barracks. Doc. 71, Ex. D at 28 & 43, Ex. F; Doc. 77, Ex. 2.
14. The duty officer is required to perform a visual security check of Barracks 13 and 14 at least once every thirty minutes.6 Doc. 77, Exs. 2, 7B & 10.
15. During Defendant Mazzanti's shift on March 16, 2014, he performed visual security checks of Barracks 13 approximately every thirty minutes. At the time Patterson was attacked by Black, Defendant Mazzanti was either in the control booth or the hallway. Id., Exs. 2 & 3; Doc. 71, Ex. F.
16. On March 16, 2014, after Black assaulted Patterson, a shift briefing investigation was conducted. This investigation revealed that all Varner posts, including the control booth post between Barracks 13 and 14, were properly staffed as required by ADC internal policies and American Correctional Association Standards. Doc. 71, Ex. E ¶ 5.
Patterson's claims for monetary damages, the only relief he seeks in this action, are asserted against each of the Defendants in both their "official" and "individual" capacities. Doc. 1 at 4. The doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes Patterson from obtaining monetary damages against the Defendants in their official capacities. See Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012); Larson v. Kempker, 414 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, his claims against the Defendants, in their official capacities, should be dismissed, with prejudice.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for monetary damages in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right that a reasonable person would have known. Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 736 (2011); Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir. 2016). To "overcome the defense of qualified immunity," Patterson must show that: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Saylor, 812 F.3d at 643; Livers v. Schneck, 700 F.3d 340, 350 (8th Cir. 2012).
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishmentrequires 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 (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 prevail on his failure to protect claim, Patterson must prove that: (1) objectively, there was a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) subjectively, Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that substantial risk of serious harm. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 2011); Young, 508 F.3d at 872. An official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Keeping these principles in mind, the Court will now determine whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Patterson, demonstrate that, at the time of the attack, there was a "deprivation of a constitutional right." To make that determination, the Court must consider whether: (1) there was "objectively" a substantial risk of serious harm to Patterson; and (2) "subjectively" the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that substantial risk of serious harm.
Importantly, there is no evidence that any of the Defendants could have anticipated Black's surprise attack on Patterson. See Doc. 71, Ex. E ¶¶ 6-9; Doc. 77 at 74. Patterson and Black had lived together in the same barracks, without incident, for several months. Although they were involved in an altercation on March 15, 2014, Patterson thought the incident was resolved when he went to bed that night. He admits that he did not inform any of the Defendants of the March 15, 2014 incident, or ask that Black be placed on his enemy alert list or otherwise separated from him in Barracks 13. Thus, no one - not...
To continue reading
Request your trial