Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00857/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00857-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CLARENCE ADAMS, )

AIS #164805, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-857-TMH

) [WO]

)

JUDGE L. B. SMITHHART, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Clarence Adams [“Adams”], a state inmate, alleges

the defendants, state court officials, placed erroneous information regarding a 1989 arson

conviction in his prison file which has been used by correctional officials to deny him

various privileges and favorable prison programs. Pl.’s Compl., Court Doc. No. 1 at 5.

Adams seeks removal of the challenged information from his prison file. Id. at 4.

The defendants filed a special report, answer, and supporting evidentiary materials

addressing Adams’ claim for relief. Pursuant to the orders entered herein, the court deems

it appropriate to treat thisreport as a motion for summary judgment. Order of Jan. 3, 2011,

Court Doc. No. 19. Thus, this case is now pending on the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. Upon consideration of such motion and the evidentiary materials filed in

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 10
support thereof, the court concludes that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is

due to be granted.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is

no genuine [dispute] as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.’” Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258,

1263 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citation to former rule omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

(“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute asto any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).

1

The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of

informing the district court of the basisfor its motion, and identifying those portions of the

[record, including pleadings, discovery materials and affidavits], which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue [- now “dispute” -] of material fact.” Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant may meet this burden by

presenting evidence indicating there is no dispute of material fact or by showing that the

Effective December 1, 2010, Rule 56 was “revised to improve the procedures for presenting and deciding

1

summary-judgment motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Advisory Committee Notes. Under this revision, “[s]ubdivision (a)

carries forward the summary-judgment standard expressed in former subdivision (c), changing only one word –

genuine ‘issue’ becomes genuine ‘dispute.’ ‘Dispute’ better reflects the focus of a summary-judgment

determination.” Id. “‘Shall’ is also restored to expressthe direction to grantsummary judgment.” Id. Thus, although

Rule 56 underwent stylistic changes, its substance remains the same and, therefore, all cases citing the prior versions

of the rule remain equally applicable to the current rule. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 10
nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on

which it bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-24.

The defendants have met their evidentiary burden and demonstrated the absence of

any genuine dispute of material fact. Thus, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish,

with appropriate evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine dispute material to his case

exists. Clark v. Coats &Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); Celotex, 477 U.S.

at 324; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3) (“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or

fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact by [citing to materials in the

record including affidavits, relevant documents or other materials] the court may . . . grant

summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the facts considered

undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it.”) A genuine dispute of material fact

exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263.

In civil actions filed by inmates, federal courts

must distinguish between evidence of disputed facts and disputed matters of

professional judgment. In respect to the latter, our inferences must accord

deference to the views of prison authorities. Unless a prisoner can point to

sufficient evidence regarding such issues of judgment to allow him to prevail

on the merits, he cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage.

Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 2578, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006) (internal

citation omitted). Consequently, to survive the defendants’ properly supported motion for

3

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 10
summary judgment, Adamsisrequired to produce “sufficient [favorable] evidence” which

would be admissible at trial supporting his claims of constitutional violations. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). “If the evidence

[on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly

probative . . . summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50. “A mere ‘scintilla’ of

evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be enough

of a showing that the [trier of fact] could reasonably find for that party. Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).” Walker v.

Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-77 (11th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations based on

subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and,

therefore, do not suffice to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Waddell v. Valley

Forge Dental Assocs., Inc., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001); Holifield v. Reno, 115

F.3d 1555, 1564 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff’s “conclusory assertions. . . , in the absence

of [admissible] supporting evidence, are insufficient to withstand summary judgment.”);

Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, 916 (11th Cir. 1995) (grant of summary judgment

appropriate where inmate produces nothing beyond “his own conclusory allegations”

challenging actions of the defendants); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir.

1984) (“mere verification of party’s own conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose

summary judgment. . . .”). Hence, when a plaintiff failsto set forth specific factssupported

4

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 10
by requisite evidence sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case

and on which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is due

to be granted in favor of the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 (“[F]ailure of proof

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other

facts immaterial.”); Barnes v. Southwest Forest Indus., Inc., 814 F.2d 607, 609 (11th Cir.

1987) (indicating that if on any part of the prima facie case the plaintiff presents

insufficient evidence to require submission of the case to the trier of fact, granting of

summary judgment is appropriate).

For summaryjudgment purposes, onlydisputesinvolvingmaterialfacts are relevant.

United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363

F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). What is material is determined by the substantive law

applicable to the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Lofton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Children

& Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Only factual disputes that are

material under the substantive law governing the case will preclude entry of summary

judgment.”). “The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary

judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the

case.” McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003)

(citation omitted). To demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, the party opposing

summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there issome metaphysical doubt

5

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 10
as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational

trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine [dispute] for trial.’”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In cases

where the evidence before the court, which is admissible on its face or which can be

reduced to admissible form, indicates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and

that the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law, summary

judgment is proper. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24 (finding that summary judgment is

appropriate where pleadings, evidentiary materials and affidavits before the court show

there is no genuine dispute as to a requisite material fact); Waddell, 276 F.3d at 1279

(finding that to establish a genuine dispute of material fact, the nonmoving party must

produce evidence such that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict in his favor).

Although factual inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the

nonmoving party and pro se complaints are entitled to liberal interpretation by the courts,

a pro se litigant does not escape the burden of establishing by sufficient evidence a genuine

dispute of material fact. Beard, 548 U.S. at 525, 126 S.Ct. at 2576; Brown v. Crawford,

906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, the plaintiff’s pro se status alone does not

mandate this court’s disregard of elementary principles of production and proof in a civil

case. In this case, Adams fails to demonstrate a requisite genuine dispute of material fact

in order to preclude summary judgment. Matsushita, supra.

6

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 10
III. DISCUSSION

Adams asserts the defendants placed erroneous information in his prison file with

respect to the nature and number of arson convictions imposed upon him in 1989 by the

Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama. Pl.’s Compl., Court Doc. No. 1 at 5. The

defendants adamantly deny this allegation and contend the information provided to

correctional officialsistrue and correct. Specifically, the defendants maintain they did not

provide erroneous information to correctional officials regarding the plaintiff’s attempted

arson conviction. The undisputed state court records filed herein support this assertion as

the plaintiff’s prison file reflects one arson related conviction for first degree attempted

arson - the only arson conviction imposed upon him in 1989 by the Circuit Court of

Barbour County, Alabama. Defs.’ Ex. B (Tr. of R.), Court Doc. No. 18-2 at 3. Thus, the

defendants do not admit that information contained in the plaintiff’s prison file is false and

the record is devoid of evidence that correctional officials knowingly relied on false

information in determining the plaintiff’s eligibility for favorable prison programs.

In Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437 (11th Cir. 1991), the Court held that reliance

on admittedly false information to deny a prisoner consideration for parole was arbitrary

and capricious treatment violative of the Constitution. The appellate court carefully

distinguished its holding from its prior decision in Slocum v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons

& Paroles, 678 F.2d 940 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1043 (1982).

7

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 10
Our holding today does not conflict with our earlier holding in

Slocum, supra. In Slocum, the plaintiff, who had been denied

parole, made the conclusory allegation that the Board must

have relied upon erroneous information because otherwise the

Board would surely have granted him parole. Slocum, 678

F.2d at 941. The plaintiff then sought to assert a due process

right to examine his prison file for the alleged errors. Unlike

the instant case, in Slocum the state did not admit that it had

relied upon false information in denying parole nor did the

plaintiff present any evidence that his prison file even

contained any false information. We held in Slocum that

prisoners do not state a due process claim by merely asserting

that erroneous information may have been used during their

parole consideration. Id. at 942. We also determined that

prisoners do not have a due process right to examine their

prison files as part of a general fishing expedition in search of

false information that could possibly exist in their files. Id. In

the case at bar, we are confronted with prison authorities who

admit that information contained in Monroe’s files is false and

that they relied upon such information, at least in part, to deny

Monroe parole and to classify him as a sex offender. As we

stated, the parole statute does not authorize state officials to

rely on knowingly false information in their determinations.

Thomas [v. Sellers], 691 F.2d [487] at 489 [(11th Cir. 1982)].

Monroe, 932 F.3d at 1442.

Slocum controlsthe disposition of the instant case. The defendants maintain and the

record before the court establishes that the information provided to correctional officials

regarding the plaintiff’s 1989 conviction for first degree attempted arson is true and

correct. It islikewise clear that correctional officials did not rely on information regarding

this conviction they knew to be false when assessing the plaintiff’s suitability for various

prison programs. Consequently, the record in this case is undisputed that Adams’ prison

8

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 8 of 10
file does not contain admittedly false information. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff

is entitled to no relief as a matter of law and summary judgment is therefore due to be

granted in favor of the defendants.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.

2. Judgment be GRANTED in favor of the defendants.

3. This case be dismissed with prejudice.

4. The costs of this proceeding be taxed against the plaintiff.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 29, 2011 the parties may file objections to this

Recommendation. Any objectionsfiled must clearly identify the findingsin the Magistrate

Judge’sRecommendation to which the partyis objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

9

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 9 of 10
District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en

banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Done this 15th day of July, 2011.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

Case 2:10-cv-00857-TMH-WC Document 20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 10 of 10