Tyson v. Gay
| Decision Date | 07 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 5:19-CT-03315-M |
| Parties | JUSTIN MICHAEL TYSON, Plaintiff, v. LIEUTENANT GAY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
This cause is before the court on defendant Mobley's motion for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 181], defendant Page's motion for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 193], and plaintiffs motions for relief from judgment, Mot. [D.E. 209], Mot. [D.E 218], Mot. [D.E. 219], Relevant Procedural History:
On October 29, 2019, Justin Michael Tyson (“plaintiff'), a pretrial detainee proceeding without prepayment of fees, filed pro se a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [D.E. 1, 2, 5]. Plaintiff twice moved to amend his initial complaint. See [D.E. 9 10].
In the operative complaint, plaintiff names as defendants Pitt County Detention Center (“Detention Center”) employees Lieutenant Gay and Officers McDaniel, Jordan Andrews, Taylor, Russell, Singleton III, and Woolard (collectively, the “original defendants”), and alleges that, between December 14 and 15, 2017: these defendants, (aside from Gay) used excessive force, slamming him on his face and causing both a “busted forehead” and a dislocated hip; Gay “denied me outside medical treatment for my injury, leaving me in a cell in excruciating and unbearable pain for a 28-hour time period”; “officers would not let nurses bring medication inside my cell while my hip was dislocated”; “my morning and lunch meals were not brought inside my cell while I could not walk”; he was treated differently from other inmates over a minor violation; he was denied medication and attention from an outside medical provider; “harassment took place on various occasions” after the incident; he underwent right hip surgery on December 15, 2017; and he continues to suffer mental and physical effects from these occurrences. See 2d. Am Compl. [D.E. 10] at 3-9. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, monetary damages. Id. at 10.
On January 8, 2020, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge via a text order.
On August 18, 2020, the court, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motions to amend, conducted its initial review of the complaint, and allowed the action to proceed in part as to plaintiffs excessive force and deliberate indifference claims. Order [D.E. 11], On October 16, 2020, the original defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, Mot. [D.E. 33], together with a memorandum in support [D.E. 34], Plaintiff responded in opposition to this joint motion to dismiss. See [D.E. 40, 44], On September 22, 2021, the court, inter alia, granted in part the original defendants' joint motion to dismiss as to claims against them in their official capacities, but denied the motion on all other grounds, finding that plaintiff had plausibly alleged a viable deliberate-indifference claim as to Gay and viable excessive-force claims as to these other defendants. See Order [D.E. 55].
On October 5, 2021, the original defendants answered the complaint. See [D.E. 59-66], On October 18, 2021, plaintiff moved for joinder, seeking to add as defendants Detention
Center officers Mobley (“Mobley”) and Sergeant Page (“Page”). Mot. [D.E. 72]. The court denied this motion, Order [D.E. 92], and plaintiff moved for reconsideration, Mot. [D.E. 93].
On March 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 105], with a memorandum in support and a statement of facts, see [D.E. 105-1], and an affidavit [D.E. 105-2], On April 11, 2022, the original defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 116], a memorandum in support [D.E. 117], a statement of material facts [D.E. 118], and an appendix [D.E. 119], Pursuant to Roseboro v, Garrison, 528 F.2d 309,310 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam), the court notified plaintiff about the original defendants' motion, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadline. [D.E. 120], On May 11, 2022, the original defendants filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [D.E. 129], together with a statement of material facts [D.E. 130], On May 16, 2022, the court, among other things, granted plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, joined Page and Mobley as defendants, and allowed the operative second amended complaint to proceed against Page and Mobley. Order [D.E. 132].
On May 20, 2022, plaintiff filed, among other things, a memorandum of law in opposition to the original defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Mem. [D.E. 133].
On May 31, 2022, plaintiff filed a supplemental response in opposition the original defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Supp. Resp. [D.E. 136].
On July 28, 2022, Mobley moved to dismiss the complaint, Mot. [D.E. 160], and filed a memorandum in support, [D.E. 161], On August 5, 2022, Page answered the complaint. [D.E. 162].
On August 8, 2022, plaintiff responded to Mobley's motion to dismiss. [D.E. 164].
On August 11, 2022, Mobley filed a reply to plaintiffs response. [D.E. 165].
On August 16, 2022, the court denied Mobley's motion to dismiss. Order [D.E. 167].
On September 6, 2022, Mobley answered the complaint [D.E. 175], and moved to deem the answer timely filed, Mot. [D.E. 176]. The court granted this motion. Order [D.E. 178].
On October 21,2022, plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to Mobley and Page, Mot. [D.E. 179], and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 179-1], a statement of facts [D.E. 179-2], an affidavit [D.E. 179-3], an appendix [D.E. 179-4], and exhibits [D.E. 179-5].
On October 27, 2022, the court, inter alia: denied both of plaintiffs motions for summary judgment; granted in part the original defendants' joint motion for summary judgment as to the excessive force claims against McDaniel, Russell, Singleton III, Taylor, and Woolard, and as to the deliberate-indifference claim against Gay; denied the original defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the excessive-force claims against Jordan and Andrews; dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs newly raised claims; allowed the parties until December 5, 2022, to file a response, if any, to the court's notice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 6(f); and directed the clerk to terminate as defendants McDaniel, Russell, Singleton III, Taylor, Woolard, and Gay. Order [D.E. 180].
On October 28, 2022, Mobley moved for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 181], and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 182], a statement of material facts [D.E. 183], and an appendix [D.E. 184]. Pursuant to Roseboro, 528 F.2d at 310, the court notified plaintiff about Mobley's motion, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadline. [D.E. 185], On November 4, 2022, Page moved for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 186], and filed a memorandum in support with attachments, see [D.E. 187].
On November 7, 2022, the court entered a notice of deficiency as to defendant Page's motion, and plaintiff filed, inter alia, a response to the court's notice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), see [D.E. 188], and a notice of appeal as to the court's October 27, 2022, order, see [D.E. 189].
On November 9, 2022, defendant Page filed the instant motion for summary judgment, Mot. [D.E. 193], a memorandum in support [D.E. 194], a statement of material facts [D.E. 195], and an appendix [D.E. 196]. Pursuant to Roseboro, 528 F.2d at 310, the court notified plaintiff about Page's motion, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadline [D.E. 197].
On November 16,2022, plaintiff responded in opposition to Mobley's motion for summary judgment. Pl.'s Resp. [D.E. 198].
On November 21, 2022, Mobley filed a reply [D.E. 199], and plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Page's motion for summary judgment, Pl.'s Resp. [D.E. 200], and a motion for attorney's fees, Mot. [D.E. 201].
On November 23, 2022, Mobley filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees. Mobley's Resp. [D.E. 203].
On December 5,2022, plaintiff filed a reply as to his motion for attorney's fees [D.E. 205].
On December 21, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees, notified all parties that the court is considering entering summary judgment for the original defendants, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), on Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) exhaustion grounds, directed defendants seeking to rely upon exhaustion arguments to docket relevant Detention Center records and declarations or affidavits by January 5, 2023, and allowed plaintiff until January 20, 2023, to file a response. Order [D.E. 208].
On January 3,2023, the court docketed plaintiffs motion for relief from judgment or order, see Mot. [D.E. 209], and memorandum in support, [D.E. 209-1].
On January 5,2023, Mobley and the original defendants filed a joint response to the court's December 21,2022, order [D.E. 211], the affidavit of a Pitt County Sheriffs employee, Detention Center Captain Nancy Poston, [D.E. 211-1], and a Detention Center grievance log [D.E. 211-2], On January 6, 2023, Page filed a response to the December 21, 2022, order. [D.E. 212], On January 19, 2023, Mobley and the original defendants filed a response in opposition to plaintiffs motion for relief from judgment or order. [D.E. 214], On January 24, 2023, the court docketed plaintiffs response to the court's December 21, 2022, order. See [D.E. 215], On January 31,2023, plaintiff moved the court to grant on the grounds of default his motion for relief from judgment as to defendants Mobley and Page, respectively, see Mot. [D.E. 218]; Mot. [D.E. 219], and Mobley and the original defendants responded in opposition, [D.E. 220].
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment:
1) The Parties Arguments:
In support of their motions...
To continue reading
Request your trial