Morris v. Baker

• Decision Date: 14 July 2016
• Docket Number: Case No.: 5:14cv211/WS/EMT
• Parties: TOMMY L. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. K.N. BAKER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

TOMMY L. MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. K.N. BAKER, Defendant.

Case No.: 5:14cv211/WS/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

July 14, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Tommy L. Morris ("Morris"), an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC"), proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Morris sues Sgt. Kenneth N. Baker, an FDOC correctional officer, claiming that Baker violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to honor his medical pass to be housed in a lower tier cell with a cellmate (see ECF No. 51 (Fourth Amended Complaint)). Morris sues Sgt. Baker in his individual capacity only (see id. at 7). Presently before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 87, 102). Each party responded in opposition to the other's motion (ECF Nos. 90, 105). The parties also submitted evidentiary material in support of their positions (ECF Nos. 87, 90, 105, 111).

The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends that Defendant Sgt. Baker's motion for summary judgment be granted, and Plaintiff Morris' motion for summary judgment be denied.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In Morris' Fourth Amended Complaint (ECF No. 51), which is the operative pleading, Morris claims that Sgt. Baker violated the Eighth Amendment by deliberately housing him under conditions that were prohibited by his medical pass and posed a substantial risk of serious harm to his health and safety (id. at 7). Morris alleges that as a result of Sgt. Baker's conduct, he fell down a stairway, causing physical pain and permanent injuries to his lower back and left knee, for which he is still receiving medical treatment (id. at 6, 10). Morris alleges he also suffered psychological damage and mental anguish (id. at 6). Morris seeks compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $200,000.00 from Sgt. Baker in his individual capacity (id.).

On January 5, 2016, adopting the undersigned's recommendation, the District Judge denied Sgt. Baker's motion to dismiss (see ECF Nos. 77, 84).¹ Sgt. Baker timely filed his motion for summary judgment on January 15, 2016 (see ECF Nos. 83, 87). Morris filed a response in opposition to the motion on January 21, 2016 (see ECF No. 90).

Morris filed his motion for summary judgment on February 20, 2016, over one month beyond the deadlines for filing dispositive motions (see ECF Nos. 83, 102). Sgt. Baker filed a response in opposition to Morris' motion for summary judgment on March 7, 2016 (ECF No. 105).

On March 10, 2016, the court issued an advisement order concerning summary judgment, which provided the parties with information concerning Rule 56 review and provided Morris an additional thirty (30) days to supplement his response to Sgt. Baker's motion for summary judgment, if he so desired (ECF No. 108). Subsequently, the court granted Morris' request to extend that deadline, and re-set thedeadline to June 10, 2016 (see ECF Nos. 110, 114). Morris filed additional evidentiary material on March 30, 2016 (ECF No. 111).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment Standard

In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support his or her case or present affirmative evidence that the nonmoving party will be unable to prove his or her case at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the moving party successfully negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Id. The "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if the "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id., 477 U.S. at 248. A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. The nonmoving party must show more than the existence of a "metaphysical doubt" regarding the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986). Speculation or conjecture from a party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. See Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005). "A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party will not suffice to overcome a motion for summary judgment." Young v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. The nonmoving party must either point to evidence in the record or present additional evidence sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion at trial based on the alleged evidentiary deficiency. See Celotex Corp., supra; Owen v. Wille, 117 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 56 requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by his or her own affidavits, or by the depositions, documents, affidavits or declarations, admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial); Hammer v. Slater, 20 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 1994).

Evidence presented by the nonmoving party in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and all reasonable factual inferences arising from it, must be viewed in the light most favorable to him or her. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999). Nonetheless, the nonmoving party still bears the burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence of every element that he or she must prove. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 317. A motion for summary judgment should be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.

The Rule 56 standard is not affected by the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment. The court must evaluate each individual motion on its own merits, viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party in each instance. See Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. ClearCube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1293-94 (N.D. Ala. 2006); see also Shaw v. Constructors v. ICF Kaiser Eng'rs, Inc., 395 F.3d 533, 538-39 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Cross-motions must be considered separately, as each movant bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (3d ed. 1998) ("The court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard.").

With regard to the factual positions asserted by the parties, the court must apply the standard set forth in Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

. . . .

(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2010). Facts asserted in hearsay statements which are not subject to a hearsay exception, and thus would not be admissible in evidence, are insufficient to show that a fact is genuinely disputed.

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court will consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, or grant summary judgment if the moving party's motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the moving party is entitled to it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2, 3) (2010).

B. Eighth Amendment Standard

To succeed in a § 1983 action, "a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law." Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). The Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984); see also Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1242 (11th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court has developed a two-part analysis governing Eighth Amendment challenges to...