Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04043/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04043-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

TOMMY DEWAYNE HALL PLAINTIFF

VS. Civil Case No. 05-4043

SHERIFF H.L. PHILLIPS; JEFF 

BLACK; and TERRY PORTER DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 14, 2006 by the

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Arkansas. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff Tommy Dewayne Hall has timely filed his objections to the

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 34). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts

the Report and Recommendation as its own. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tommy Dewayne Hall brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to complain of his treatment while incarcerated at the Miller County Jail. Specifically,

plaintiff contends that defendants violated his federal constitutional rights through the: (1)

unsafe conditions at the Miller County Jail caused by a leaking water sprinkler; (2) denial of

adequate medical care; (3) interference with plaintiff’s legal mail; (4) failure to protect plaintiff

from attack by a fellow inmate; and (5) false arrest and false imprisonment of plaintiff on failure

to appear charges in April and June of 2003. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment

on February 14, 2006. (Doc. 22). The plaintiff, by way of questionnaire, responded to

defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on April 17, 2006. (Doc. 30).

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Plaintiff was booked into the Miller County Jail on August 27, 2004 and remained there

until October 27, 2005. Plaintiff was incarcerated because of pending criminal charges and

because of a probation revocation. During his incarceration, plaintiff slipped and fell on some

water that had leaked from a faulty water sprinkler. The fall caused plaintiff to suffer constant

spinal pain, headaches and blurry vision. Plaintiff’s spinal pain also makes walking difficult at

times. Plaintiff was taken to Wadley Regional Medical Center following his fall where he was xrayed for broken bones. Plaintiff was prescribed Tylenol #3 for his pain, which he claims to have

never received. Plaintiff eventually received Ibuprofen after repeated requests. Plaintiff is

currently being treated at the infirmary at the Arkansas Department of Correction for his pain. 

Plaintiff also complains that prison officials withheld his legal mail and opened it before

giving it to him. Plaintiff complained on several occasions that his mail had been held and

opened, nearly causing him to miss court deadlines. 

Plaintiff was attacked by a fellow inmate while incarcerated. The attack occurred while

plaintiff was in the medical pod, which was to be restricted to only those inmates on medication.

Plaintiff’s attacker was not on medication. Plaintiff’s attacker had not threatened him in any way

prior to the attack. Plaintiff complained of further spinal pain as a result of the attack. 

Plaintiff also complains that he was twice falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned on a

failure to appear charge. The failure to appear charge, on which the arrest warrant was issued, 

was later dropped. 

DISCUSSION

First, Judge Shepherd construes plaintiff’s response to the summary judgment motion as

amending his complaint to assert claims against defendants both in their individual and official

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
3

capacities. Normally, when the plaintiff fails to state whether he is suing an official in his

individual capacity, Eighth Circuit courts construe the claim to be against the official in his

official capacity only. See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir.

1999). However, Judge Shepherd recommends that this rule of construction yield to the

overriding interest in liberally construing pro se complaints. See, e.g., Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433

F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006). Here, plaintiff is incarcerated and appearing in this matter pro se.

Thus, the Court agrees with Judge Shepherd that plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Summary

Judgment should be deemed to amend his complaint to assert claims against defendants in both

their individual and official capacities. 

Second, Judge Shepherd recommends that Sheriff H.L. Phillips is entitled to summary

judgment with respect to all claims. In plaintiff’s questionnaire response to the summary

judgment motion, he admits that he never personally spoke to or communicated with Sheriff

Phillips about the conditions at the jail, his requests for medical treatment, or the attack by fellow

inmate. Now, in his objections to Judge Shepherd’s Report and Recommendation, plaintiff

claims to have spoken to Sheriff Phillips before he went to the hospital. The Court finds this

assertion in plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive. In any event, the Court agrees with Judge

Shepherd that Sheriff Phillips is entitled to summary judgment in his favor with respect to each

of plaintiff’s claims. Supervisors may not be held liable in respondeat superior for constitutional

violations under § 1983. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018,

56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978). Plaintiff does not contend that Sheriff Phillips participated in any of the

alleged constitutional violations, and the record in this case is devoid of any suggestion of a

custom or policy of the Miller County Jail on which Sheriff Phillips could be held liable. 

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
4

Third, Judge Shepherd believes that defendants are entitled to summary judgment with

respect to the unsafe conditions claims, the interference with legal mail claims, the failure to

protect claims, and the false imprisonment and false arrest claims. Plaintiff’s allegations of

unsafe conditions at the Miller County Jail sound in the Eighth Amendment, which requires that

plaintiff allege “deliberate indifference” on the part of prison officials towards conditions at the

prison that create a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834,

114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). Here, prior to his fall, plaintiff had never complained

of water leaking from the sprinkler system, nor is he aware of any other inmate so complaining.

The record is devoid of indication that defendants were aware of the condition of the sprinkler or

that they were aware of a substantial risk to detainees posed by the leaking sprinkler. Thus, the

Court agrees with Judge Shepherd that no genuine issues of fact exist with regard to this claim,

and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to this claim. 

Plaintiff’s allegations of interference with his mail raise First Amendment issues. In the

context of a prison, the First Amendment is only offended by regular and unjustifiable

interference with an inmate’s ability to send and receive mail–isolated incidents of mail

tampering are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346,

351 (2d. Cir. 2003). Here, the plaintiff complains of one specific incident of mail tampering, and

notes, without detail, some subsequent interference. In such a scenario, plaintiff’s claims do not

rise to the level of “regular and unjustifiable,” and the record does not indicate that the named

defendants were responsible for the alleged interference with plaintiff’s mail. Therefore, the

Court agrees with Judge Shepherd that no genuine issues of fact exist with regard to this claim.

Plaintiff’s allegations of failure to protect from other inmates sound in the Eighth

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
5

Amendment. To prevail on this claim, plaintiff must show that his incarceration with his attacker

posed a substantial risk of serious harm and that the defendants knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to plaintiff’s safety. Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003). Here, 

plaintiff’s attacker had never previously threatened him prior to the attack. The attacker did not

have a previous history of violent attacks on other inmates. None of plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the failure to protect claim rise to the level of deliberate indifference on the part of

defendants. Thus, the Court agrees with Judge Shepherd that no genuine issues of fact exist with

regard to this claim.

Plaintiff’s allegations of false arrest and false imprisonment sound in the Fourth

Amendment. A facially valid arrest warrant, insulates officers from claims of false arrest, unless

a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the arrest warrant is invalid. Mendenhall v.

Riser, 213 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, plaintiff has not alleged any facts that suggest the

arrest warrant was invalid. Plaintiff has also failed to allege any connection between the named

defendants and the securing of the arrest warrant for his arrest. Thus, the Court agrees with

Judge Shepherd that defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to the false arrest

and false imprisonment claims. 

Finally, Judge Shepherd believes that genuine issues of fact exist with respect to

plaintiff’s claim that he was not provided adequate medical care. Deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976). Failure

to treat medical conditions does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the Eighth

Amendment unless prison officials knew that the condition created excessive risk to the inmate’s

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
6

health and then failed to act on that knowledge. Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Here, plaintiff alleges that he was not provided with the prescription medication ordered by the

hospital following his slip and fall, nor did he receive necessary follow-up care. Plaintiff has

repeatedly submitted grievances complaining of back and neck pain and stiffness following the

slip and fall and the attack. Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Shepherd that genuine issues

of material fact exist as to whether Defendant Porter and Defendant Black were deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, the Court finds defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

should be and hereby is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s claims of unsafe

conditions, interference with mail, failure to protect from fellow inmates, and false arrest and

false imprisonment are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claim for denial of adequate

medical care may proceed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2 day of August, 2006. nd

/s/Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes 

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04043-HFB Document 35 Filed 08/02/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>