Keeling v. Schaefer, CIV.A.97-3352-MLB.
| Citation | 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.97-3352-MLB.,CIV.A.97-3352-MLB. |
| Parties | Fred KEELING, Plaintiff, v. Greg SCHAEFER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Fred L. Keeling, Lansing, KS, pro se.
W. Terrence Kilroy, Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., Kansas City, MO, for Greg Shaffer and Joe Menghini.
James W. Coder, Office of Attorney General, Topeka, KS, for Charles E. Simmons, David R. McKune and Sheryl N. Saywer.
Plaintiff Fred Keeling, an inmate in the Lansing Correctional Facility, filed this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging his Eighth Amendment and Due Process rights were violated. Doc. 1. Plaintiff named Greg Schaefer,1 Joseph Menghini, Charles Simmons, David McKune, and Sheryl Sawyer as defendants.2 This matter is presently before the court upon defendants' motions for summary judgment. Docs. 20 and 22.3 For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
On February 3, 1997, plaintiff was working at Impact Design, Incorporated (Impact), a private, for-profit Kansas corporation operating within the confines of Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF). Plaintiff's job was to "inventory" spools of thread used in Impact's embroidery business and provide management with an accurate count of their stock. Plaintiff alleges he began the task in the early morning hours and expected the job would not be finished until the early evening hours. Sometime around 3:00 p.m., another inmate, Johnson, also an Impact employee, asked plaintiff for a spool of thread. When plaintiff attempted to hand the requested thread to Johnson, Johnson allegedly struck plaintiff in the face with an unknown metal object. While plaintiff describes himself as the victim of an unprovoked attack, defendants aver the blame rested with, if not plaintiff solely, both inmates.
As a result of this altercation, plaintiff suffered severe damage that caused his blood to spill on the floor. Schaefer, a non-inmate employee, apparently saw several spools of thread strewn about the area where plaintiff was supposed to be working and later found plaintiff bleeding in the restroom near the location of the attack. Schaefer allegedly offered his assistance to plaintiff, was told there would be no further trouble between plaintiff and Johnson, and had his efforts to inform LCF authorities as to plaintiff's conditions rebuffed by plaintiff. Martinez Report, p. 3. Plaintiff does not deny these allegations but instead alleges Schaefer's decision did not comport with prison regulations. Doc. 24, p. 2. Schaefer claims he instructed plaintiff to wait on the Impact loading dock while Schaefer determined what to do next. Plaintiff contends Schaefer ordered him to return to his cell.
In any event, plaintiff did reach his cell that evening. During that evening and throughout the night, he claims to have suffered through the evening with severe medical conditions, such as "grandma [sic] seizures,"5 excruciating pain, and repeated losses of consciousness. When he awoke in the morning, he was greeted by another inmate/employee of Impact who, allegedly at the behest of Menghini, instructed plaintiff not to detail to anyone how he received his injuries and retrieved plaintiff's blood-soaked clothing to cover-up the incident. Plaintiff allegedly informed this inmate/employee he could not report to work that day due to his serious medical conditions. When the inmate/employee left plaintiff's cell, plaintiff literally stumbled out of his cell and collapsed before a prison guard. He was taken to a the prison medical station and then transferred to a local hospital where he underwent substantial corrective surgery to a great portion of his face.
The day following the attack, plaintiff was charged by prison officials with violating two prison regulations for fighting6 and poor work performance.7 "Due to plaintiff's injuries and one continuance by the state, an evidentiary hearing was not held until April 3, 1997." Martinez Report, p. 5. With regard to the fighting charge, plaintiff represented himself, did not request any witnesses, and was given an opportunity to cross examine the prison's witnesses. Martinez Report, p. 5. During his own testimony, plaintiff stated he was attacked and no fight occurred. Contrary to plaintiff's testimony, there was some evidence that plaintiff did admit to fighting with Johnson. Relying upon this alleged admission, the reporting officer's statement, and other statements in the disciplinary report, Sawyer, in her capacity as hearing officer, found plaintiff guilty of fighting and sentenced him to twenty-one days in disciplinary segregation. Plaintiff's appeal of his conviction to Simmons, the Secretary of Corrections, was denied.
With respect to the deficient work performance charge, prison officials asserted plaintiff "deliberately miscalculated a thread inventory which resulted in needed thread not being ordered, a loss of customer orders as a result thereof and thread not needed being ordered." Martinez Report, p. 6. Plaintiff was afforded the same procedural safeguards he enjoyed at the "fighting" hearing. At this hearing, Menghini the author of the document detailing the violation, "stated that plaintiff submitted a thread inventory count which was deliberately miscounted and resulted in needed thread not being ordered and unneeded thread being ordered." Id. Plaintiff denies he provided a false inventory to Impact, claiming instead that he provided no inventory at all. Specifically, plaintiff claims he was unable, due to the altercation, to finish the inventory and that Menghini knew of the altercation. Sawyer found plaintiff guilty of a work performance violation "based upon [Menghini's] report and statements." Id. at 7. While Menghini, on behalf of Impact, requested $3515.00 in restitution, Sawyer found that amount "to be excessive and ordered plaintiff to pay restitution in the amount of $2965.00." Id. As a result of this judgment, plaintiff's prison account has been "frozen." Plaintiff appealed this conviction and judgment, arguing Sawyer did not rely upon any evidence other than the statements of Menghini. Menghini, plaintiff alleged, did not produce any evidence to support his claimed loss. Simmons again denied plaintiff's appeal.
Plaintiff has filed suit against Schaefer and Menghini. It deserves special attention and explanation as to how these defendants came into contact with plaintiff and what relationship they maintain with the state of Kansas. Impact entered into a contract with the state of Kansas that allowed Impact to lease building space at LCF so that Impact could operate its business.8 Doc. 28, ¶ 7.9 Under the terms of the lease, Impact agreed to employ inmates in its business and pay them not less than the federal minimum wage. Doc. 28, Ex. B. Impact was also allowed to
deduct from said wages such amounts as necessary to reimburse Kansas for its expenses in fulfilling its obligations under this agreement as required and provided by law, regulation, and policy of [LCF] and applicable federal statutes and criteria under the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program.
Id. Furthermore, Impact agreed to pay the Department of Corrections $1.00 per month for every month of work in this area. As to their respective responsibilities of the inmates, LCF was required to "provide such corrections officers and coverage as [LCF] feels is necessary for supervision of inmates employed by [Impact] at times when such inmates are working." Id. In turn, Impact was to provide instruction to the inmates regarding the work they were to perform and supervise this job performance. Doc. 28, ¶ 11.
Impact, as an entity, is not a named defendant in this action; Schaefer and Menghini are. Doc. 28, p. 2. Both Schaefer and Menghini are employees of Impact. Schaefer is a supervisor and reportedly was one of the first to discover plaintiff after the incident. His interaction, as described above, relates solely to the incidents occurring on February 3, 1997. It does not appear he took any part in the subsequent events. Menghini, the President of Impact, actually signed the agreement between Impact and LCF. Unlike Schaefer, it appears he had little, if any, knowledge of or contact with the incident and plaintiff's injuries on February 3, 1997. His role in the events regarding plaintiff became noteworthy after the initial altercation. He filled out a report form indicating plaintiff's work performance caused his company a considerable loss and testified in a similar fashion at plaintiff's disciplinary hearing.
The usual and primary purpose of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) directs the entry of summary judgment in favor of a party who "show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." An issue is "genuine" if sufficient evidence exists on each side "so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way" and "[a]n issue is `material' if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim." Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir.1998) (citations omitted); see also Adams v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 233 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Adler).
Defendants initially must show both an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Adler, 144 F.3d at 670. Because plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, defendants need not "support [t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meiners v. University of Kansas
...capacities. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against state officials in their individual capacities. See Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1217 (D.Kan.2001) 28. Plaintiff could only prevail under one of two scenarios: First, plaintiff could recover if the contract contemplate......
-
Cooper v. Sedgwick County, Kansas, CIV.A.01-1269-MLB.
...(10th Cir.2000) cert. denied sub. nom. Turner v. Worrell, 533 U.S. 916, 121 S.Ct. 2521, 150 L.Ed.2d 693 (2001); Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1221 (D.Kan.2001) (citing Worrell). Thus, to state a claim for supervisor liability against either Bardezbain, Steed, and/or Hill, plainti......
-
Jones v. Ward
... ... disciplinary tribunal's decision was made.” ... Keeling v. Schaefer , 181 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1223 (D ... Kan. 2001); see Hill , 472 U.S. at 457 ... ...
-
Freeman v. Carroll
...are appropriate to prison disciplinary proceedings and Mullane does not hold otherwise. Mr. Freeman also cites Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D. Kan. 2001); however, Keeling, another inmate disciplinary case involving a restitution sanction, applied Wolff as the appropriate due pr......
-
Keeling v. Schaefer.
...District Court DUE PROCESS RESTITUTION Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D.Kan. 2001). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials and a private corporation that employs inmates within a corrections facility. The district court granted summary judgme......
-
Keeling v. Schaefer.
...District Court DISCIPLINE Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D.Kan. 2001). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials and a private corporation that employs inmates within a corrections facility. The district court granted summary judgment to the def......
-
Keeling v. Schaefer.
...District Court INMATE FUNDS Keeling v. Schaefer, 181 F.Supp.2d 1206 (D.Kan. 2001). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officials and a private corporation that employs inmates within a corrections facility. The district court granted summary judgment to the d......