Burnett v. Acikgoz
| Decision Date | 30 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:13-CV-1990-JAR,4:13-CV-1990-JAR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | MATTHEW BURNETT, Plaintiff, v. AYKAN ACIKGOZ, Defendant. |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Aykan Acikgoz's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 17) The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.1 For the following reasons the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff Matthew Burnett, a Missouri inmate, is confined in the St. Charles County Adult Correctional Facility ("Jail"). On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages against the Jail and Defendant Correctional Officer Aykan Acikgoz ("Defendant"). (Complaint ("Compl."), Doc. No. 1) On March 20, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims with the exception of his Fourteenth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference in failing to intervene and/or protect Plaintiff from an assault by other inmates. (Doc. No. 9) Defendant contends he is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff is unable to present sufficient facts or evidence to establish a cause of action and because there is nogenuine issue as to any material fact. (Doc. No. 19) In response, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant withheld all evidence to support his claim. He references a video recording which he contends would have proven Defendant failed to intervene or end the assault in a proper and procedural manner. (Doc. No. 23) Defendant replies that Plaintiff has not properly responded to his motion and that his claim of "withheld evidence" is disingenuous because Plaintiff conducted no discovery in this matter. (Doc. No. 24)
Legal standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists in the case and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The initial burden is placed on the moving party. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir. 1988). If the record demonstrates that no genuine issue of fact is in dispute, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party, who must set forth affirmative evidence and specific facts showing a genuine dispute on that issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse him from responding to Defendant's motion with specific factual support for his claims to avoid summary judgment, Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001), or from complying with local rules, see Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 373 (8th Cir. 1983). See also Carman v. Treat, 7 F.3d 1379, 1381 (8th Cir.1993) (). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-52 ().
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate in a particular case, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Benford v. Correctional Medical Services, 2012 WL 3871948, at *4 (E.D.Mo. Sept. 6, 2012) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331). The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Id. (quoting Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011)).
On July 23, 2013, at approximately 12:48 p.m., Plaintiff was in housing unit F of the Jail. Defendant was on duty at this time, posted in the housing unit control room. Shortly after 12:48 p.m., Defendant ordered all inmates in the housing unit to return to their cells so they could be locked in their individual cells, a process known as "racking-down." When several inmates refused to rack-down, Defendant repeated his order, turned off the television in the housing unit, and began to flash the lights. Several inmates continued to refuse to rack-down. At this time, Plaintiff and inmates Robert Williams, David Ewing and Byron Mischeaux became involved in a verbal altercation, which then escalated to a physical altercation. Upon observing the altercation, Defendant called central control to report the altercation to a supervisor and request assistance. This report was made at 12:50 p.m. Assistance arrived at the housing unit within fifteen to thirty seconds after the call went out and the fight ended. The entire altercation from the order to rack-down to the end of the fight lasted less than two minutes.
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials "to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal quotation omitted). Although the Eighth Amendment applies directly only to convicted prisoners, the Fourteenth Amendment provides civilly committed individuals and other detainees "at least the same level of constitutional protection as the Eighth Amendment." Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 446 n. 3 (8th Cir.2010) (); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982).
Not every prisoner-inflicted injury amounts to a constitutional violation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. To establish a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments,a prisoner or detainee must demonstrate that the defendant officer was "deliberately indifferent to a 'substantial risk of serious harm.' " Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828). See also Nelson, 603 F.3d at 446. This requires a plaintiff to make a two-part showing. First, the plaintiff must show that, "viewed objectively, the deprivation of rights was sufficiently serious," which requires establishing that " 'the official's failure to protect resulted in the inmate being incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.' " Nelson, 603 F.3d at 446 (quoting Young, 508 F.3d at 872). Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant official was "deliberately indifferent" - that is, that [he] "actually kn[ew] of the substantial risk and fail[ed] to respond reasonably to it." Nelson, 603 F.3d at 446 (quotation marks omitted). Merely negligent conduct is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.
Substantial risk of serious harm
Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish Plaintiff was subject to an objective, substantial risk of serious harm. (Doc. No. 19 at 6-7) In determining whether an inmate faced a substantial risk of serious harm under Farmer, "the assailant's conduct can provide the court 'the most probative evidence of the degree and type of risk that [the inmate] faced.' " Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1127 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Nelson, 603 F.3d at 447 (8th Cir.2010) (alteration in original).
There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that inmates Williams, Ewing and Mischeaux were known to be dangerous; a review of their inmate records show no reports of violence or assaults directed toward Plaintiff prior to the July 23, 2013 altercation. (DSOF at ¶¶ 25-27) In fact, there are no reports of violence or assaults in any of these inmates' files prior toJuly 23, 2013. (Id.) Therefore, there is nothing to suggest inmates Williams, Ewing and Mischeaux posed a substantial risk to any inmate housed at the Jail prior to July 23, 2013.
Plaintiff's deposition testimony further establishes the absence of a risk of harm. Plaintiff testified he had no reason to believe he was in any danger from any inmate at the Jail. (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 30-31) It was also Plaintiff's testimony that prior to July 23, 2013, he had never associated with or even talked to the inmates who attacked him. (Id. at ¶ 39) He stated he had no reason to believe he was going to be attacked by Williams, Ewing and Mischeaux and that the attack had taken him by surprise. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-41) "A single episode of violence, without warning or suspicion, is insufficient to establish a pervasive risk of harm, particularly when the injured inmate views the attack as an isolated incident." Falls v. Nesbitt, 966 F.2d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 1992). See also Smith, 910 F.2d at 502.
Because the evidence does not support a finding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff objectively faced a substantial risk of harm at the time of the July 23, 2013 assault, the Court need not address whether Defendant subjectively acted, or failed to act, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety. See Berry v. Sherman, 365 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir. 2004). Even so, there is insufficient evidence of record to establish that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff.
Deliberate indifference
An official is deliberately indifferent if he or she actually knows of the substantial risk and fails to respond reasonably to it." Nelson, 603 F.3d at 447 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844-45). The standard requires a "culpable state of mind ... more blameworthy than negligence." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834-35 (citation omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, "the official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that substantial risk of serious harmexists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 837. Whether a prison official knew of...
To continue reading
Request your trial