Barley v. Riley
Decision Date | 11 September 2013 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-798-WC [WO] |
Parties | DANIEL M. BARLEY, #260262, Plaintiff, v. BOB RILEY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Daniel M. Barley ["Barley"], a state inmate, alleges that rights, privileges or immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States have been abridged by the defendants.1 Barley names former Governor Bob Riley, former Attorney General Troy King, former Director of Public Safety J. Christopher Murphy, former Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections Richard Allen, Director of Central Records Kathy Holt and Director of Classification Carolyn Golson asdefendants in this cause of action. Barley seeks a trial by jury, monetary damages, declaratory relief, preliminary/permanent injunctive relief and costs.2
The defendants filed an answer, special reports and relevant supporting evidentiary materials addressing Barley's claims for relief. The court informed Barley that the defendants' special reports may, at any time, be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and the court explained to Barley the proper manner in which to respond to a motion for summary judgment. Order of November 9, 2010 - Doc. No. 26. Barley filed a response and supplements thereto in opposition to the special reports filed by the defendants. Doc. No. 35; Doc. No. 42; Doc. No. 51; Doc. No. 53 and Doc. No. 56. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the court deems it appropriate to treat the defendants' reports as a motion for summary judgment. Thus, this case is now pending on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of this motion, the evidentiary materials filed in support thereof and Barley's responses in opposition, the court concludes that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.
"Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine [dispute] as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment asa matter of law.'" Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ( ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ().3 The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record, including pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits], which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue [- now dispute -] of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by presenting evidence indicating there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-24.
The defendants have met their evidentiary burden and demonstrated the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Thus, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish, with appropriate evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine dispute material to his case exists. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324;Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3) (). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263.
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 2578, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006) (internal citation omitted). Consequently, to survive the defendants' properly supported motion for summary judgment, Barley is required to produce "sufficient evidence" supporting his claims of constitutional violations which would be admissible at trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "If the evidence [on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly probative . . . summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-77 (11th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and, therefore, do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1564 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) ( ); Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, 916 (11th Cir. 1995) ( ); Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) (); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir. 1984) (). Hence, when a plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts supported by requisite evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case and on which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 (); Barnes v. Southwest Forest Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 607, 609 (11th Cir. 1987) ( ).
For summary judgment purposes, only disputes involving material facts are relevant. United States v. One Piece of Real Property Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Florida, 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). What is material is determined by the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Lofton v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004) (). "The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case." McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). To demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In cases where the evidence before the court, which is admissible on its face or which can be reduced to admissible form, indicates there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24 ( ); Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., Inc.,276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) ( ).
Although factual inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and pro se complaints are entitled to liberal interpretation by the courts, a pro se litigant is not excused from the burden of establishing by "non-conclusory and meaningful evidence" that a genuine dispute of material fact exists. Johnson v. Hulett, 491 F. App'x 60, 61 (11th Cir. 2012); Beard, 548 U.S. at 525, 126 S.Ct. at 2576; Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, the plaintiff's pro se status alone does not mandate this court's disregard of elementary principles of production and proof in a civil case. In this case, Barley fails to demonstrate a requisite genuine dispute of material fact so as to preclude summary judgment. Matsushita, supra.
Barley filed this action...
To continue reading
Request your trial