Kunkle v. Cox
| Decision Date | 22 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | NO. 3:08-CV-100,3:08-CV-100 |
| Parties | MICAH KUNKLE, Plaintiff, v. PATROLMAN KIM COX, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants, Marshall County Sheriff's Department, Marshall County Jail, Kim Cox, Nick Laffoon, and Rickey Dixon, in their individual and official capacities, on April 30, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED as follows: the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all claims against Defendants, Kim Cox and Nick Laffoon; the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and the Clerk is ORDERED to DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's state law claims under Article I § 16 of the Indiana Constitution. Furthermore, the Clerk is ORDERED to CLOSE this case.
BACKGROUND
Procedural Background
Plaintiff, Micah Kunkle, filed a complaint in this case on February 4, 2008, in the Marshall Superior Court, and the case was removed to this Court on February 29, 2008. The complaint revolves around a physical altercation between Kunkle and another inmate (Chad Shock) in the Marshall County Jail. In a nutshell, Kunkle alleges that Defendants, Marshall County Sheriff's Department, Marshall County Jail, and Rickey Dixon (hereinafter "Defendants"), failed to properly separate and segregate the inmates and caused Plaintiff's injuries when he was severely beaten.
Following extensive discovery, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on April 30, 2010. Defendants argue that Dixon is entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence that he was deliberately indifferent to a risk of an imminent attack, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants also contend that the Marshall County Sheriff's Department is an agency of the Sheriff, thus not subject to suit. Finally, Defendants argue that the Marshall County Jail is entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim because it did not adhere to an unconstitutional policy or custom and was not deliberately indifferent to officers' training; additionally, there is no evidence that a final policymaker for the Sheriff was personally involved in the alleged Constitutional deprivation. Kunkle fileda response in opposition to the instant motion on May 21, 2010, controverting Defendants' arguments. Defendants filed a reply on June 7, 2010. As such, this motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
The Court notes that although Patrolman Kim Cox and Patrolman Nick Laffoon were originally named as defendants in the complaint, Kunkle has agreed to dismiss the claims against them because "after extensive discovery there are not sufficient facts to establish that Kim Cox and Nicholas Laffoon played a role in causing Plaintiff's injuries." (Opp. Mem., p. 11.) As such, summary judgment is granted against defendants Kim Cox and Nick Laffoon.
Undisputed Factual Background
On January 20, 2006, Plaintiff Micah Kunkle was arrested for an altercation involving his ex-girlfriend. He was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor, intimidation with a deadly weapon, driving while suspended, battery resulting in bodily injury to another, and carrying a handgun without a license. (Micah Kunkle Booking Report ("Booking Report"), p. 1; Micah Kunkle Deposition ("Kunkle Dep."), pp. 14-16, 21-22.) Patrolman Kim Cox was at the scene of the altercation and transported Kunkle to the Marshall County Jail. (Kunkle Dep., p. 18.) At the time of his arrest, Kunkle was 23 years old, five feet six inches tall (5'6"), and weighed 160 pounds. (Booking Report, p. 1.)
Plaintiff was booked into the Marshall County Jail on January 20, 2006, and the following morning, he was assigned to cell block M-1. (Micah Kunkle Inmate Log ("Inmate Log"), p. 9.) M-1 was considered a maximum security cell-it had individual cells and a common day area. (Maryanne Martin Deposition ("Martin Dep."), p. 26.) However, due to overcrowding, M-1 was not used as a maximum security cell. (Martin Dep., p. 26.) At that time, the other inmates assigned to M-1 were Chad Shock, Frank Pancek, and Terry Heider.
When Kunkle entered the cell, Shock said, (Kunkle Dep., p. 26.) Shock also told Kunkle that, (Kunkle Dep., p. 28.) Kunkle contends he told head jailer Michael Mattern, a friend of Kunkle's brother, that Shock was "freaking [him] out" and that he wanted to be transferred. (Kunkle Dep., p. 32.) Kunkle testified that he told jail officer Dixon that if he and Shock got into a confrontation, there would be a fight. (Kunkle Dep., pp. 60-61.) Kunkle also told an unnamed jail officer that he needed to move because he and Shock were not getting along. (Kunkle Dep., p. 29.) The jail records indicate that Kunkle was in M-1 from January 21-January 24, 2006, although Kunkle claims it was for a week and a half. (Affidavit of Michael Mattern, ("Mattern Aff., " ¶ 7; Kunkle Dep., p. 25.) Kunkle's Inmate logindicates that he was moved from M-1 to D-4 on January 24, 2006, "because the inmates in M-1 advised they were sick of him crying all the time." (Inmate Log, p. 9.)
As Jailor Dixon came to the cellblock to move Kunkle, Shock pinned Kunkle against a wall and slammed a Bible into Kunkle's throat, telling him to (Kunkle Dep., p. 29.) According to Kunkle, Jailor Dixon witnessed the entire event. (Id., pp. 29-30.) At that point, Kunkle and Dixon walked out of M-1. (Id. at 30.) This incident was admittedly the only time Shock laid a hand on Kunkle prior to his transfer, everything else was just verbal intimidation. (Kunkle Dep., pp. 30, 34.)
Kunkle was transferred to cellblock D-4, a dormitory style cellblock designed to house six inmates. The cellblock was open, with three bunk beds. Due to overcrowding, there were usually more than six inmates in D-4. Some of the inmates had to sleep on the floor. Usually inmates worked it out among themselves which ones would get a bed based on who had been in the cellblock longer. Jail officers noticed that Kunkle had a bed after only a couple of days in D-4. (Affidavit of Rickey Dixon, "Dixon Aff., " ¶¶ 9, 10.) Also, other inmates were bringing him food. (Id.) Jailer Dixon suspected Kunkle was "running the block, " or asserting control over the other inmates, and for management purposes, the jail did notencourage such behavior. (Id.) Dixon was also aware that Kunkle made a threat to "punk" or "punk out" Officer Cox. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Dixon was concerned that Kunkle's attitude towards the officer could influence other inmates, and other jail officers told Dixon that they had noticed a change in Kunkle's attitude. (Id.)
Because of his concerns about Kunkle, Dixon called head jail officer Michael Mattern the evening of February 5, 2006, to discuss the possibility of transferring Kunkle. (Dixon Aff., ¶ 11.) Mattern agreed that Kunkle should be moved out of D-4 due to his attitude, and Mattern had concerns about Kunkle communicating with the female block. Id. Mattern had caught Kunkle standing on the toilets to talk to block F-1 through the ceiling vent at least twice. (Mattern Aff., ¶ 11.) Mattern and Dixon decided to transfer Kunkle back to M-1. (Dixon Aff., ¶ 11.) They believed because M-1 was a smaller cellblock, Kunkle would have fewer inmates to impress. (Id.)
Kunkle was moved back to M-1 on February 5, 2006, the night of the Super Bowl. Before moving Kunkle, Dixon went to M-1 and told inmate David Weirick that he was having trouble with someone else, and asked Weirick if he minded moving cell blocks. (Deposition of David Weirick, "Weirick Dep., " p. 14.) Weirick said he did not mind moving blocks, and Dixon took him to D-4. (Id., pp. 14-15.) Neither Weirick nor Terry Heider, another inmate in M-1, heard Dixon tell Shock that Kunkle was returning to M-1 or that Shockshould attack Kunkle when he returned. (Weirick Dep., p. 16; Deposition of Terry Heider, "Heider Dep., " p. 29.) Shock denies that Dixon or anyone else set up a fight between him and Kunkle. (Deposition of Chad Shock, "Shock Dep., " pp. 16-17.)
According to Kunkle, when Dixon told him he was transferring back to M-1, Kunkle told Dixon he could not go back there because he had gotten into a confrontation with Shock. (Kunkle Dep., p. 45.) Kunkle contends that Dixon told him Shock had been taken "downstate" to prison a few days earlier, so Kunkle willingly went with Dixon to M-1. (Kunkle Dep., p. 45.) Dixon denies that the subject of Shock was ever discussed during the transfer. (Dixon Aff., ¶ 14.)
Once Dixon got to M-1, he opened the door for Kunkle, then Dixon left. (Id.) According to Shock and Heider (another inmate), Kunkle called Shock a "bitch." (Shock Dep., p. 16; Heider Dep., pp. 30, 46.) Shock himself testified that when he walked into the cell, he said something like, "[i]s that f___ing retard Chad gone?" (Kunkle Dep., pp. 69-70.) Kunkle may have said "jackass" or "idiot, " but he believes he said "f____ing retard." (Id., p. 70.) Martin saw Shock shove Kunkle, then they got into a fight. (Martin Dep., pp. 75-76.) Dixon was called back to the cellblock, and he saw Kunkle get punched in the face multiple times. (Dixon Dep., p. 80.) From the catwalk outside, Dixon heard Kunkle say "f___ you to Shock." (Dixon Aff., 1 15.) However, Dixon admitted that Shock wasthe aggressor in the fight, and after the fight ensued, that Kunkle was trying to defend himself. (Dixon Dep., p. 79.) Kunkle was wearing glasses, and during the fight, they fell on the floor and were damaged. (Kunkle Dep., pp. 74-77.)
Dixon entered the cell to break up the fight. (Dixon Aff., ¶ 15.) After the fight,...
To continue reading
Request your trial