Emery v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 12 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:19-cv-00111 JTK |
| Parties | JASON EMERY ADC # 510514 PLAINTIFF v. WILSON, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Plaintiff Jason D. Emery filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging cruel and unusual punishment while incarcerated at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) (Doc. No. 6). Plaintiff asks for compensatory and punitive damages.
Pending before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by Defendants Wilson and Davis (Doc. Nos. 51-53). Plaintiff filed a Response, Brief in Support and Response to Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 54-56).
Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2019, Defendants denied him water and access to the restroom for over ninety (90) minutes in the extreme heat during inside recreation time, resulting in him soiling himself and being ridiculed by other inmates (Doc. No. 6, pp. 6-7). He states he suffered irreparable physical injury requiring treatment for constipation, colonitis,1 abdominal pain and other issues related to this incident, including mental health treatment. Id. at pp. 7-8. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Wilson, who is African American, consistently displayed discriminatory behavior towards him and other white inmates. Id. at p. 7.
Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). "The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying 'those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (). "Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 1135. Although the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, "in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit." Id.
According to Defendant Wilson's declaration, in August 2019, she was employed at the ADC Grimes Unit as sergeant (Doc. No. 51-3, p. 1). On August 31, 2019, her first day on shift as the housing sergeant, she worked in Housing Unit 4, where Emery resided. Her duties included "supervision of the Housing Unit, the area, staff, and inmates that makeup the zone the Housing Unit is located in; and ensuring all inmate activity and movement in the barracks and entering and exiting of the Housing Unit is properly monitored and control[led]." Id. Wilson also oversaw the security, sanitation, safety training, count procedures, mass movements, metal detectors, and all other activities taking place in the unit, which is composed of 19-22 barracks----each barrackconsisting of two tiers that house 40-50 inmates. Id. at pp. 1-2. Emery was assigned to 20 barracks. Id. at p. 2.
On August 31, one officer was located upstairs in the control booth and could not leave that area until relieved by another officer. Id. Defendant Wilson was working alone in the unit vestibule, a circular hallway outside the 19-22 barracks that encompassed doors to each barracks and doors to the unit's inside recreation area.2 Id. From the barracks, Wilson could see inside the barracks and inside the inside recreation area. Id.
Recreational time allows inmates to obtain exercise in the outside area of their housing unit. Recreational time is one hour, and inmates who choose the inside recreation area have access to a basketball side and a handball side. Id. In the inside recreation area, inmates have access to water provided in a water cooler but do not have access to a restroom. Id. Inmates are encouraged to use the restrooms prior to going to inside recreation because, once there, they are not allowed to leave unless a medical emergency existed or other circumstances, like a staff member call for an inmate, necessitated an exception. Id. Many inmates were upset that day because Wilson would not allow them to roam between the basketball and handball sides while she was the only officer on the floor, as it would impose a security risk. Id. at p. 3.
During inside recreation on August 31, Wilson recalled Emery came to the door on the handball side and stated he was hot and wanted to go inside. Id. at p. 3. Wilson noted Emery did not say he needed to use the restroom, that it was an emergency, or that he was having stomach issues. Wilson told Emery he could not go inside because he was hot and would have to wait until the end of inside recreation. Id. Shortly thereafter, Emery requested to go inside a secondtime, never mentioning it was an emergency or a medical issue; Wilson denied the request again. Were there to be an emergency or a medical issue during inside recreation, Wilson would call for responders to come to the area to address the issue and escort the inmate involved inside. Id. Wilson acknowledged allowing inmate Harrison inside his barracks during inside recreation after his return from work. Id. at p. 4. She also allowed inmate Cook inside after receiving a call from staff who requested Cook report for work. Id. Wilson did not recall an inmate Martinez being allowed to roam in or around the vestibule during inside recreation time. Id. at p. 3.
During the shift briefing, Defendant Davis advised staff not to let inmates in or out without two officers on the floor. Id. Because she was the only officer in the vestibule, Wilson called Davis and requested another officer assist her with returning the inmates from recreation. Id. at p. 4. Wilson never told Davis inmate Emery asked to go inside, and Emery did not tell Wilson he soiled his pants. Id. From Wilson's experience, when an inmate soiled his pants, officers would know because of the odor and other inmates reacting thereto. Id. No such event occurred on August 31 when the unit returned from recreation. Id.
Defendant Davis stated in a declaration that he had worked in the Grimes Unit his entire ADC career (Doc. No. 51-4, p. 1). He is a shift Lieutenant charged with all daily operations and supervision of subordinate sergeants. Id. Defendant Wilson was Defendant Davis's housing sergeant assigned to Housing Unit 4. Id. That day, Wilson worked alone in the unit's vestibule, the area outside the barracks 19-22 that included doors to both the basketball side and the handball side of the inside recreation area. Id. Defendant Davis had advised the officers during the shift briefing not to let the inmates in or out without two officers being on the floor. Defendant Davis received a call from Defendant Wilson on August 31, 2019, requesting assistance with turning in inmates from the Housing Unit 4 inside recreation area. Id. at p 2. Davis sent another officerto assist Wilson. Wilson did not say anything to Davis about inmate Emery having an issue or requesting to go inside during inside recreational time. Id.
Defendant Davis noted inmates received one hour of recreation five days per week, but, depending on the circumstances, may receive more time. Id. During inside recreation, inmates are provided water in a water cooler, but there are no restrooms available. Inmates are offered use of the restrooms before going to inside recreation because, once the time starts, they are not allowed to return to barracks before recreation ends. Id. at pp. 2-3. Should an inmate have an emergency or a medical issue while inside recreation, responders are dispatched who go inside recreation to address the issue. Id. at p. 3. An inmate is not allowed inside from recreation just because he is hot and being hot is not considered an emergency. Id. Defendant Davis was unaware that Inmate Emery soiled his pants during recreation until several months after the incident. Id.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law. Plaintiff claims Defendants willingly and purposely displayed a callous disregard to his safety and wellbeing, thus violating his constitutional rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual conditions and racial discrimination. Defendants argue (1) they are entitled to qualified immunity; (2) the denial of Plaintiff's request to use the bathroom and to drinking water for ninety minutes did not amount to a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (3) Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Defendant Wilson should fail as a matter of law.
For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Doc. No. 51,and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
State officials sued in their personal capacities may invoke the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Gordon v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ark., 168 F. Supp.3d 1148, 1155 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 10, 2016). The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzg...
To continue reading
Request your trial