Miller v. Callahan, 4:15-cv-00311 BRW/PSH
| Decision Date | 24 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4:15-cv-00311 BRW/PSH,4:15-cv-00311 BRW/PSH |
| Parties | STEVEN MILLER PLAINTIFF v. AUSTIN CALLAHAN, LARRY BARBEE, CHARLES "DOC" HOLLADAY, and RANDY MORGAN DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
The following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
INTRODUCTION. The defendants have filed the pending motion for summary judgment. See Document 56.1 For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted, judgment be entered for all of the defendants, and this case be dismissed with prejudice.
PLEADINGS. Plaintiff Steven Miller ("Miller") commenced the case at bar by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and joining Austin Callahan ("Callahan"), Larry Barbee ("Barbee"), Charles "Doc" Holladay, and Randy Morgan of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office"). In the complaint and a later filed amended complaint, Miller alleged that he was being transported in a Sheriff's Office van when it was struck from behind by another vehicle on Interstate 530. He was injured in the accident and attributed his injuries to a lack of seatbelts in the van. He maintained that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety when they allowed him to be transported in a van without seatbelts.
The defendants responded to the complaints by filing a motion for summary judgment. In the motion and an accompanying brief, they acknowledged that Sheriff's Office vans are not equipped with seatbelts for inmates. The defendants nevertheless maintained that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because they "did notknow of and disregard an excessive risk to Miller's health and safety." See Document 56 at CM/ECF 1. With specific regard to Miller's official capacity claims, they maintained that he failed to show an underlying constitutional violation. With specific regard to his individual capacity claims, they maintained that they enjoy qualified immunity.
Miller filed a response to the motion for summary judgment in which he offered several reasons why the defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As a part of his response, he submitted a document that contains the following provision: "Agents secure inmate in transport van and properly place seat belt on inmate." See Document 60 at CM/ECF 7.2
FACTS. The defendants filed a statement of material facts as required by Local Rule 56.1(a). Miller filed a response to the defendants' statement, but the response did not conform to the requirements of Local Rule 56.1(b). The undersigned has nevertheless considered Miller's response, as well as the other pleadings and exhibits in the record. Those submissions establish that the material facts are not in dispute. The facts are as follows:
1. On April 15, 2015, Miller was booked into the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility as a "convicted penitentiary returnee" from the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"). See Document 57 at CM/ECF 1.
2. On July 16, 2015, Miller and six other inmates entered a Sheriff's Office van for transport to the "respective ADC units to which they were designated." See Document 57 at CM/ECF 1.
3. The van could carry up to thirteen inmates and was staffed, in accordance with the Sheriff's Office policy and practice, by two officers, in this instance Callahan and Barbee. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 1, 4.
4. Callahan and Barbee sat in the front seats and were separated from the inmates by steel fencing. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 4.
5. Four rows of benches were behind the steel fencing; the first three rows of benches could seat three inmates, and the back bench could seat four inmates. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 4.
6. The Sheriff's Office procedure for transporting inmates requires See Document 57 at CM/ECF 3.
7. The vans used by the Sheriff's Office for transport are not equipped with seatbelts for inmates. The reason the vans are not so equipped is premised upon a concern that inmates could use the seatbelts as "a weapon to harm an officer, other inmates being transported in the van, or themselves." See Document 57 at CM/ECF 3.
8. There are other reasons why the vans are not equipped with seatbelts for inmates; those reasons are as follows:
See Document 57 at CM/ECF 3-4.
9. Given the forgoing concerns, it is the Sheriff's Office practice to have inmates enter the vans without assistance, then be seated while the two transport officers guard the inmates waiting to board. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 4.
10. The Sheriff's Office goal is to transport inmates without harm to the officers or inmates, and it is the Sheriff's Office policy that all departmental vehicles be operated in a safe, courteous, and lawful manner. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 4.
11. Callahan was driving the van along Interstate 530 when traffic in front of the van came to a complete stop; he stopped the van, after which the following occurred:
See Document 57 at CM/ECF 2.
12. Miller received medical attention after the accident, but it was determined that his injuries required no medical care. See Document 57 at CM/ECF 2.
ANALYSIS. A prisoner's challenge to the conditions of his confinement is analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. See Johnson v. Boyd, 676 F.Supp. 2d 800 (E.D.Ark. 2009) (Wright, J.). He must show that the conditions constituted a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety and that state officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm posed by the conditions. See Id. If, however, the person is a pre-trial detainee, his challenge to the conditions of his confinement is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2010). He must show that the conditions constitute punishment. See Id. With respect to that standard, the Court of Appeals has observed the following:
... "[P]retrial detainees are entitled to 'at least as great' protection [under the Fourteenth Amendment] as that afforded convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. ... "Although this court has yet to establish a clear standard for pretrial detainees, we repeatedly have applied the same 'deliberate indifference' standard as is applied to Eighth Amendment claims made by convicted inmates." ... "We have previously suggested that the burden of showing a constitutional violation is lighter for a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment than for a post-conviction prisoner under the Eighth Amendment." ...
See Id. at 809 [internal citations omitted].
Miller's claim that he was transported in a van without seatbelts is a challenge to his conditions of confinement. See Id. (). Was he a prisoner at the time of the accident or a pre-trial detainee? The defendants represent that he was a "convicted penitentiary returnee," but the precise meaning of that phrase is not clear. Miller admits that he was "in jail for [a] parole violation [and was] facing pending charges." See Document 1 at CM/ECF 3. Although correctly identifying his status as a prisoner or pre-trial detainee is not critical as the same analysis is involved, the undersigned finds that he was a prisoner. He must therefore show that being transported in a van without seatbelts constituted a substantial risk of serious harm to his health or safety, and state officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm posed by the conditions.
In Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equiment Company, 183 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1999), a police officer was called upon to transport Spencer, who was handcuffed and intoxicated. The officer escorted Spencer to the rear of a patrol wagon and into the prisoner compartment, after which the following occurred:
... Once inside the compartment, Spencer sat on one of two steel benches which run lengthwise along each side of the compartment's interior. [Footnote omitted]. There were no seatbelts or other safety restraint devices installed in the compartment. Spencer claims that during the trip to...
To continue reading
Request your trial