Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00081/USCOURTS-ared-1_15-cv-00081-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clinton Baker
Defendant
Banks
Defendant
Terrie Bannister
Defendant
Evans
Defendant
Faust
Defendant
Griffin
Defendant
Wilbert Lezell Johnson
Plaintiff
Jada Lawrence
Defendant
Raymond Naylor
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILBERT LEZELL JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

 

v. 1:15CV00081-BSM-JJV

BAKER, Sergeant, Grimes Unit; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District

Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this

recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis

for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and

the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must

be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14)

days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the

opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal

questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different,

or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you

must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was

1

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 6
not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the

form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

Fromthis submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Wilbert Lezell Johnson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pro se and pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 5.) He alleges Defendants Clinton Baker,1 Terrie Bannister,

Banks, Raymond Naylor, and Jada Lawrence violated his constitutional rights by denying

him adequate process during prison disciplinary proceedings. (Id. at 11-14.) Specifically,

Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated when he was not allowed to attend a disciplinary

hearing in January 2015.2(Id. at 11.) Now, Defendants have moved for summary judgment

1The docket currentlylists this Defendant simply as “Baker.” Iwill recommend that the Clerk

of Court alter the docket to reflect his full name.

2Defendants state that Plaintiff has conflated two separate disciplinary incidents in his

Amended Complaint. They argue that Plaintiff received one disciplinary in October 2014 and it is

undisputed that he was allowed to attend the disciplinary hearing relevant to this violation. (Doc.

No. 33-1 at 1-3; Doc. No. 34 at 2.) The disciplinary violation at issue here was issued in December

2014. (Doc. No. 34 at 2.) I will only consider allegations relevant to this second violation, since this

action is proceeding exclusively on Plaintiff’s claim that he was not allowed to attend the

2

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 6
on Plaintiff’s claims

3

against them. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff has not offered any substantive

response to Defendants’ Motion. On March 29, 2016, he submitted ‘objections’ to the

Motion wherein he argued that he lacked the legal expertise necessary to continue

representing himself. (Doc. No. 35.) I declined to appoint Plaintiff counsel, but did offer

him an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. No. 37.) The deadline

has expired and Plaintiff has not submitted any responsive pleadings as of this date.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is

proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary

judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may

not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the existence of specific facts that

create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The

nonmoving party’s allegationsmust be supported bysufficient probative evidence that would

permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id.

(citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a

disciplinary hearing for this violation. (Doc. No. 8.)

3Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5) also contained claims against Defendants

Faust, Evans, and Griffin. These defendants were previously dismissed, however. (Doc. No. 8.) 

3

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 6
reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects

the outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir.

2012). Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not

preclude summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th

Cir. 2010).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants offer three arguments in support of their Motion. First, they contend

Defendants Banks, Naylor, and Lawrence should be dismissed because they had no personal

involvement in the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights. Second, they argue

Defendant Bannister is entitled to summary judgment because he had no involvement in

determining whether Plaintiff would be allowed to attend his disciplinary hearing. Finally, 

Defendants state Plaintiff voluntarily waived his appearance at his disciplinary hearing and,

as such, they cannot be held liable for failing to escort Plaintiff to that hearing. After review

of the record and, for the reasons stated hereafter, I recommend that Defendants’ Motion be

granted. 

The basis of this suit is that Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary violation in December

2014 and was not allowed to attend his disciplinary hearing in January 2015. Defendants

have provided a sworn affidavit from Defendant Baker which indicates that Plaintiff was

afforded an opportunity to attend this hearing, but voluntarily declined it. On January 5,

2015, Baker approached Plaintiff’s cell and attempted to rouse and escort him to his

scheduled disciplinary hearing. (Doc. No. 33-3 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff declined to get out of his rack

4

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 6
or to sign the waiver of appearance form. (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.) Baker then prepared the waiver form

and indicated Plaintiff had refused to either attend his hearing or sign the form. (Doc. No.

33-4.) Defendants emphasize that Baker had no discernable4motive for falsifying this form

or preventing Plaintiff’s appearance at the hearing insofar as he was not involved in the

events giving rise to the disciplinary violation. (Doc. No. 33-2 at 1.) Beyond the

unsupported allegations5in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has not provided any

contradictory argument or evidence. When confronted with a movant’s sworn testimony on

summary judgment, the non-movant must meet proof with proof. See Conseco Life Ins. Co.

v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902, 909 (8th Cir. 2010) (“When the movant makes a prima facie

showing of entitlement to a summary judgment, the respondent must discard the shielding

cloak of formal allegations and meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a

material fact.”) (quoting Flentje v. First Nat'l Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 569, 11 S.W.3d

531 (2000) (internal quotations omitted)). Plaintiff has failed to do so and this action should

be dismissed on this basis.6

4Plaintiff alleges Defendant Baker was implicated in a previous lawsuit and the instant due

process violation was an act of retaliation for that suit. (Doc. No. 5 at 13.) Baker was not a

defendant in the case Plaintiff cites, however. See Johnson v. Hubbard, et al., 1:14-CV-00107-JM. 

5Plaintiff himself acknowledges that Defendant Baker appeared at his cell on January5, 2015, 

and told him he was scheduled for a disciplinary hearing. (Doc. No. 5 at 12.) He alleges, however,

that he was left waiting to be escorted and never signed any waiver form. (Id.)

6

In reaching this conclusion, I find it unnecessary to decide whether Defendants Banks,

Lawrence, Naylor, or Bannister had personal involvement in or responsibility for Plaintiff’s inability

to attend his disciplinary hearing. In the event these recommendations are declined in whole or in

part, I will, to the extent necessary, weigh these arguments in a subsequent recommendation. 

5

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 6
IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. The Clerk of Court alter the docket to reflect that Defendant “Baker” is 

“Clinton Baker.”

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) be GRANTED and 

Defendants Clinton Baker, Terrie Bannister, Banks, Raymond Naylor, and Jada Lawrence

be DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal fromanyOrder adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good

faith.

Dated this 19th day of April, 2016.

____________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:15-cv-00081-BSM Document 38 Filed 04/19/16 Page 6 of 6