Hardin v. Fullenkamp, Civil No: 4-99-CV-80723 (S.D. Iowa 6/22/2001)
| Decision Date | 22 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | Civil No: 4-99-CV-80723. |
| Parties | ROMEO HARDIN, Plaintiff, v. WILL FULLENKAMP, MIKE WILKINS, MATTHEW THORNTON, DAVE DEGRANGE, JAMES SHOUP, STEVE YOUNG, and GARY REA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
This matter comes before the court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Clerk's No. 36.) Plaintiff, Romeo Hardin, is an inmate at Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), Fort Madison, Iowa. Defendants Will Fullenkamp, Matthew Thornton, Jim Shoup, and Mike Wilkins are correctional officers; Steve Young is a unit manager; and Dave DeGrange is a grievance officer. Hardin brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Defendants violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to excessive force, retaliation, and conditions of confinement that transgressed his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. He seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including a plan to insure his safety and prevent similar future acts.
In the present Motion, Defendants assert Hardin has set forth insufficient evidence to establish the elements of his retaliation and excessive-force claims, and that he has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Defendants also maintain they are entitled to qualified immunity. This case was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on January 5, 2001. Hardin filed a Resistance on February 20, 2001, and an affidavit on March 6, 2001. A hearing was held on May 9, 2001. Hardin filed a supplement to his Resistance on May 24, 2001, and Defendants filed a Reply on June 7, 2001. This matter is fully submitted. After carefully considering the evidence in the record and the memoranda submitted by the parties, the court finds and recommends as follows on the issues presented.
A court shall grant a motion for summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A court must consider the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, and on which he has the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Reed v. ULS Corp., 178 F.3d 988, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). When a motion is made and supported as required in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. At the summary judgment stage, the court may not make determinations about the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are either undisputed or viewed in the light most favorable to Hardin.
On September 22, 1999, Defendant Wilkens and Officer Nick Clark, Jr., each wrote a disciplinary notice (Nos. 99-9-156 and 99-9-157) accusing Hardin of various rules violations, including verbal abuse. (Defs.' Ex. D at 1-3.) Wilkens reported that when he approached Hardin and told him his radio was too loud, the inmate yelled and referred to the officer using profanities. Clark's disciplinary notice corroborates Wilken's report.
Prison officials apparently removed Hardin's radio from his cell, because on September 23, 1999, Hardin filed an inmate memorandum referring to Wilkens' disciplinary notice and appealing the decision to remove his radio. (Defs.' Ex. D at 7; Pl's Ex. 1 at 1.)
Hardin contends that on September 24, 1999, he filed a grievance against Wilkens, alleging that Wilkens threatened him because of a previous grievance Hardin had written against Wilkens. (Pl's Compl. at 4; Pl.'s Ex. 4.) In their Answers to Interrogatories, Defendants DeGrange and Wilkins state that Hardin never filed a grievance against Wilkins, that Wilkins did not threaten Hardin, and that Hardin did not write a subsequent grievance against Wilkins accusing the correctional officer of threatening him. (Defs.' Ex. P at 2, 6; see Defs.' Statement Facts at 8.) Hardin has no copy of the grievance, and ISP does not have the original or a copy in its records.
On September 27, 1999, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found Hardin guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 26, Verbal Abuse, in case numbers 99-9-156 and 99-9-157. (Defs.' Ex. C at 2, Ex. D at 8.) Hardin received a suspended sentence of 15 days of disciplinary detention and loss of 16 days good-time credit. Id. Hardin's appeals were denied. (Defs.' Ex. D at 10.
Also on September 27, Hardin alleges, Wilkins told him he knew Hardin had filed a grievance against him, and the officer again threatened Hardin. That day, Wilkins wrote a disciplinary notice, No. 99-9-187, charging Hardin with threatening Wilkins, by saying to the officer extremely loudly as the officer walked past Hardin's cell on a security check, "Here he is now, with the snap of two fingers he will be gone." (Defs.' Ex. E.) In response, Hardin stated, Id.
Later that day, correctional officers transferred Hardin from Cellhouse 219 to Cellhouse 319, a lock-up unit. Fullenkamp told a prison investigator that when Fullenkamp and Thornton brought Hardin's television to his new cell, the inmate said the television was wet. (Defs.' Ex. G at 12.) Before taking the television into Hardin's cell, Fullenkamp handcuffed the inmate's hands in front of his waist, rather than following standard procedure of handcuffing behind his back. Id. Fullenkamp opened the cell door, and Hardin ran toward Fullenkamp with his hands raised above his head, hitting the officer on the forehead with the handcuffs. Id. Thornton helped Fullenkamp try to take Hardin down to the ground. Id. Fullenkamp and another officer, Shoup, each sounded an alarm, and responding staff subdued Hardin. Id.
Hardin, in contrast, claims that during the transfer, Officer Fullenkamp punched him in the side of the head and stated, "See where the grievance got you?" (Compl. at 4.) Defendants deny that Fullenkamp punched Hardin's head during the transfer. After arriving in his new cell, Hardin claims he noticed his ear was bleeding as a result of Fullenkamp's punch. Hardin asserts he told Fullenkamp he was going to file a grievance against him. Id. Shortly thereafter, Hardin alleges, Fullenkamp, Thornton, and Shoup took Hardin out of his cell, hit him with their fists and kicked him. According to Hardin, other officers joined in the assault, re-handcuffing Hardin behind his back and hitting the back of his head and neck with their knees. Hardin alleges the pressure from the knees in his back caused him to faint from lack of oxygen. Id.
Hardin maintains he suffered cuts and bruises as a result of the assault. (Hardin Aff. ¶ 3; Defs.' Ex. H at 18-19.) Sometime after Hardin was restrained on September 27, officers took him to the prison hospital, where he moaned and said he had pain in his back, neck, and wrist, as well as a cut on his wrist and on his jaw. (Defs.' Ex. H at 18.)
On September 27, Fullenkamp and other officers wrote disciplinary notices (Nos. 99-9-189 through 99-9-193, and 99-10-02) accusing Hardin of rules violations stemming from the September 27, 1999, altercation. (Defs.' Ex. H at 1-11.) The same day, officials transferred Hardin to an administrative segregation cellhouse, where he alleges he was confined without clothes in a cell that was unsanitary and lacking running water.
In a memorandum dated September 28, 1999, Officer James Burton, an investigator, stated that a prison physician had examined Hardin that day, because Hardin said he was hurt, and the physician saw no visible injury. (Defs.' Ex. G at 11.) Medical notes from September 28, 1999, indicate Hardin had bruises, and the inmate reported that his jaw, wrist, and neck hurt. (Defs.' Ex. H at 19.)
On approximately September 29 or October 1, 1999, Hardin was placed in investigative segregation in cellhouse 220. In his Complaint and Amended Complaint, Hardin asserts a claim based on the conditions of his confinement in segregation. Defendants do not challenge these claims in the present Motion.
On October 4, 1999, an ALJ found Hardin of verbally threatening Wilkins on September 27, 1999, in case 99-9-187. (Defs.' Ex. F at 3.) The ALJ imposed a sanction of 30 day disciplinary detention and loss of 16 days good-time credit. Id.
On October 24, 1999, Hardin wrote an inmate memorandum seeking grievance-appeal forms for two grievances that prison officials had denied. (Pl.'s Ex. 4.) One denied grievance dealt "with the threats on my life and disrespect I received from ISP staff employee Wilkins 9/23/99 (filed)." Id. On November 1, DeGrange replied that he had sent Hardin's grievance appeal to the warden for his review. Id.
In October 1999, Hardin wrote three grievances complaining about conditions of confinement and the prison staff's actions in cellhouse 220. (Pl.'s Ex. 2, 3, 5.) On November 3, 1999, an ALJ found that Hardin was guilty of assaulting Fullenkamp on September 27, 1999. (Defs.' Ex. H at 33; see Ex. N at 10 ()). The decision states as follows:
At approximately 7:45 p.m. on 9/27/99 in CH319, inmate Hardin was cuffed, in his cell, and told to face the wall, while staff issued his...
To continue reading
Request your trial