Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00606/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00606-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Anthony Flemons
Plaintiff
Nunn
Defendant
Valerie Westbrook
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

AARON ANTHONY FLEMONS PLAINTIFF 

ADC #119749 

v. No: 4:22-cv-00606 LPR-PSH 

VALERIE WESTBROOK DEFENDANT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge 

Lee P. Rudofsky. You may file written objections to all or part of this 

Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the 

factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this 

Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you 

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. 

DISPOSITION 

I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff Aaron Anthony Flemons filed a pro se complaint on June 30, 2022, 

while incarcerated at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s East Arkansas Regional 

Unit (Doc. No. 2). At the Court’s direction, Flemons filed a supplement to his 

complaint. See Doc. Nos. 3 & 7. After screening, Flemons was allowed to proceed 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 18
with a First Amendment retaliation claim against Classification Officer Valerie 

Westbrook and Captain Nunn and an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

claim against Westbrook. See Doc. Nos. 8 & 19. Flemons voluntarily dismissed his 

claim against Nunn. See Doc. Nos. 11-12. His retaliation claim against Westbrook 

was subsequently dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. Doc. No. 45. Flemons’ deliberate indifference claim 

against Westbrook remains. Id. 

Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, brief-in-support, and 

statement of undisputed material facts filed by Westbrook (Doc. Nos. 88-90); and 

Flemons’ response, brief-in-support, statement of disputed material facts, and 

declarations in opposition to Westbrook’s motion (Doc. Nos. 98-102). Also before 

the Court are two motions for injunctive relief filed by Flemons (Doc. Nos. 86-87) 

seeking to enjoin Westbrook as well as certain medical providers who are not 

defendants in this case. For the reasons described herein, the undersigned 

recommends that Westbrook’s motion for summary judgment be granted and 

Flemons’ motions for injunctive relief be denied.

II. Legal Standard

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

proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV.

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 18
P. 56(a); 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 instead 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 allegations 

must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in 

his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations 

omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must 

be supported by materials in the record such as “depositions, documents, 

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including 

those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or 

other materials . . .”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact 

is disputed or undisputed by “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is 

genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 18
summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th 

Cir. 2010). 

III. Facts1

Lawsuit Allegations & Flemons’ Incarcerations 

Flemons claims that classification officer Westbrook violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights when she assigned him to work on a hoe squad on December 30, 

2021, despite knowing he was blind in one eye and unable to physically perform that 

job. Doc. No. 2, Complaint, at 1. Flemons is an inmate at the East Arkansas 

Regional Unit (EARU) of the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC). Id. at 1. He 

has been incarcerated in the ADC several times, beginning in 2001 at the age of 19. 

Doc. No. 88-1, Inmate Record Summary, at 1-4. It appears that he was incarcerated 

until December 6, 2006, and then re-incarcerated in 2009 for about a year. Id. at 2, 

4-5 (showing discharge and new commitment dates). His current incarceration 

began in February 2012. Id. 

Flemons’ Medical Diagnosis & Health Restrictions 

Flemons claims that he has been blind in his right eye since birth. Doc. No. 

2 at 2. He asserts he received social security benefits because of his blindness and 

1

 Unless otherwise noted, these material facts are taken from the parties’ statements 

of facts (Doc. Nos. 90 & 100) and the exhibits provided by the parties. Disputed facts are 

noted. Opinions, legal conclusions, and immaterial facts are omitted. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 4 of 18
also because of mental/emotional problems.2

 Id. 

In her review of prison records concerning Flemons, Shelley Byers, the 

ADC’s Assistant Medical Services Administrator, identified one health and 

classification restriction related to vision issues. Doc. No. 88-4, Declaration of 

Shelly Byers (“Byers Declaration”), at ¶ 8. On June 4, 2009, during the initial intake 

in an incarceration prior to the current one, Nurse Practitioner Estella Murray noted 

that Flemons reported he was blind in his right eye on his initial report of physical 

examination. Id. at ¶ 8; Doc. No. 88-8, June 4, 2009, Physical Examination; Doc. 

No. 88-9, June 4, 2009, Health Services Encounter. She entered a restriction for 

“jobs needing visual acc.” Id. There is no documentation of an eye examination 

confirming the reported vision loss at that time. 

The “jobs needing visual acc.” restriction was removed on November 4, 2018, 

2 Flemons attached a copy of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision 

to his complaint. Doc. No. 2 at 12-17. That decision makes no findings about Flemons’ 

vision and specifically does not find he is disabled because of any vision issues. Id. Rather, 

it states that Flemons stated he was blind in his left eye. Id. at 16. The SSA determined 

that Flemons became disabled for purposes of his application for supplemental security 

income on September 1, 2009, based on a personality disorder diagnosis. Id. at 16-17. The 

findings specifically state that Flemons “has inflexible and maladaptive personality traits 

which cause significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective 

distress, as evidenced by pathologically inappropriate suspiciousness or hostility, 

pathological dependence, passivity, or aggressivity, and intense and unstable interpersonal 

relationship and impulsive and damaging behavior.” Doc. No. 2 at 16. The findings further 

state that Flemons’ “impairment has caused marked restriction in activities of daily living, 

marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning, marked difficulties in maintaining 

concentration, persistence or pace, and three episodes of decompensation, each of extended 

duration.” Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 5 of 18
by Advanced Practice Nurse Patrick Drummond who noted that Flemons’ eyes were 

normal on his initial report of physical examination.3 Byers Declaration at ¶ 8; Doc. 

No. 88-10, November 4, 2018, Physical Examination; Doc. No. 88-11, November 4, 

2018, Health Services Encounter; Doc. No. 88-6, Other 

Actions/Procedurals/Referrals, at 3 (showing the “jobs needing visual acc.” 

restriction entered on June 4, 2009, was terminated on November 4, 2018). 

Flemons submitted a copy of a medical record dated October 21, 2022, that 

includes some of his medical history. Doc. No. 101, Declaration of Aaron Flemons 

(“Flemons Declaration”), at 4-5. This record states that Flemons was seen onsite 

by optometry in 2019 and documents the following findings:4

 

STRABISMUS OD X BIRTH-MONITER; AMBLYOPIA OSSTABLE-MONITOR5

BLURRINESS IN OS COMING FROM CONVERGANCERIADACCOMODATION, MIOSIS, AND CONVERGANCE PT ED 

3

 It is not clear what triggered the examination in 2018. Doc. No. 88-10, 

November 4, 2018, Physical Examination; Doc. No. 88-11, November 4, 2018, Health 

Services Encounter. At this point, Flemons had been incarcerated continually since 2012. 

Doc. No. 88-1, Inmate Record Summary, at 5-7. 

4

 The record before the Court does not contain a copy of the report of that 

examination. The medical record submitted by Flemons refers to the findings of the 

optometrist. 

5

 The Court takes judicial notice of the dictionary definitions of strabismus OD and 

amblyopia OS. Fed. R. Evid. P. 201. “OD” refers to the right eye; “OS” refers to the left 

eye; “strabismus” means the eye turns inward towards the nose (commonly referred to as 

a “cross-eye”); “amblyopia” means the eye has reduced vision due to unequal vision signals 

from each eye (also called a “lazy eye”). See https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary.

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 6 of 18
Id.

 Flemons speculates that Westbrook or another staff member may have 

removed the restriction put in place in 2009 after he was assigned to hoe squad in 

2021.6

 Flemons Declaration at ¶ 9. He claims his work history proves he had an 

applicable restriction because he was not previously assigned to the hoe squad. Id. 

at 1-2, 6-11. Flemons also states that although he has never worked the hoe squad, 

he has seen the hoe squad work. Id. at 2. He says the workers are given a hoe and 

required to walk through ditches, fields, etc. chopping grass up and down.7

 Id. 

Flemons states that he received six major disciplinaries because he refused his 

assignment to hoe squad with a loss of certain privileges, reduction in class, and the 

loss of 125 days good time. Id. at 3. 

6

 Flemons complains that Westbrook refused to provide during discovery his 

classification restrictions prior to the date he was assigned to the hoe squad and that he 

needs more time to complete discovery. Doc. No. 99, Flemons’ Brief-in-Support, at fn. 1. 

Flemons was afforded ample time to litigate his discovery requests, and the Court 

previously determined that Westbrook made a good faith effort to respond to his discovery 

requests and provided the documents she could obtain. See Doc. No. 85. Additionally, 

Westbrook submitted a copy of a report called Other Actions/Procedures/ Referrals that 

lists waivers and restrictions among other medical actions. See Doc. No. 88-6. This report 

does not list any additional restrictions after the June 4, 2009 restriction was terminated on 

November 4, 2018. 

7

 In his complaint, Flemons describes the danger presented by his assignment to 

the hoe squad, stating “On hoe squad inmates are required to work through fields, in and 

out of ditches, line up closely side by side and are given a hoe and told to chop grass. I 

could chop off someone elses foot or worse cut myself because I can’t see to do the 

work.” Doc. No. 2-1 at 2. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 7 of 18
The ADC’s Classification Committee & Work Assignments 

Administrative Directive 13-55 (“AD 13-55”) is the ADC’s policy governing 

assignment to hoe squads, garden squads, and field utility squads. Doc. No. 88-12, 

AD 13-55. AD 13-55(II)(B) provides the medical classification guidelines for 

assigning an inmate to hoe squad. Doc. No. 88-12 at 2. Inmates that are medical 

classification M-1 or M-2 may be assigned to hoe squad unless they have health and 

classification restrictions that restrict assignments that require: 1) prolonged 

crawling, stooping, running, jumping, walking, or standing, 2) strenuous physical 

activity for periods in excess of eight hours, 3) handling or lifting of heavy materials 

in excess of fifty pounds, or 4) exposure to high environmental temperature for a 

period in excess of eight hours. Id. at 2, 5-6. Other assignment limitations may be 

determined on an individual basis by the unit classification officer. Id. at 5-6. 

The policy does not require the classification committee to hold a hearing or 

meet with the inmate before assigning an inmate to work on the hoe, garden, or field 

utility squads. Doc. No. 88-12. It does provide that an inmate may be “reassigned 

at the recommendation of the field supervisor and/or the Unit Classification Officer 

on a temporary basis until seen by the Unit Classification Committee,” if the inmate 

is unable to perform the job despite his best efforts or if the inmate has an enemy 

alert that needs to be evaluated. Id. at 3. 

 The classification committee at each unit assigns inmates at that unit to 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 8 of 18
housing assignments and jobs. Doc. No. 88-3, Declaration of Valerie Westbrook 

“Westbrook Declaration”), at ¶ 3; Byers Declaration at ¶ 3. The classification 

committee consists of several members, including a representative from Wellpath, 

the prison’s medical provider. Westbrook Declaration at ¶ 5. When making 

assignments, the classification committee considers inmates’ health and 

classification restrictions. The committee does not assign inmates to a housing 

assignment or job if they have a prescription indicating that an assignment would be 

inappropriate. Westbrook Declaration at ¶ 4; Byers Declaration at ¶ 4. 

The Wellpath representative is not a voting member of the committee. 

However, he or she sits on the classification committee to ensure that inmates are 

not inappropriately assigned. Id. When an inmate has a medical condition or is 

undergoing a treatment that would make a particular assignment inappropriate, the 

Wellpath representative recommends that the inmate be given a different 

assignment. Id. When the Wellpath representative recommends that an assignment 

would be medically inappropriate, the classification committee does not place the 

inmate in that assignment even if they do not have a relevant health and classification 

restriction. Id. 

Wellpath nurses and providers can issue health and classification restrictions.

Byers Declaration at ¶ 6. Nurses can write temporary prescriptions for inmates 

which remain in place until they are able to see their doctor. The doctor can then 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 9 of 18
write a permanent prescription if found necessary. Id. at ¶ 6. Health and 

classification restrictions can be added at any time. Id. To add a classification 

restriction, a Wellpath nurse or provider must fill out an electronic form which will 

instantly add it to the inmate’s list of health and classification restrictions. Id. at ¶ 

7. 

Flemons’ Assignment to the Hoe Squad 

On November 4, 2018, Flemons’ medical restriction to “jobs needing visual 

acc.” was removed by a Wellpath care provider.8

 Flemons was assigned to the hoe 

squad on December 30, 2021. Doc. No. 88-1, Inmate Record Summary, at 34; Doc. 

No. 88-2, Classification Committee Action, at 1-6. The assignment was requested 

by Westbrook on November 2, 2021, and approved by committee members 

Westbrook, Deputy Warden Michael H. Richardson, Major Tyrone D. Allison, 

School Principal Angela D. Beard, and Nurse Assistant Tryphena Jackson.9

 Doc. 

No. 88-2 at 1-5. See also Doc. No. 88-3, Declaration of Valerie Westbrook 

“Westbrook Declaration”), ¶ 1. 

At the time Flemons was assigned to the hoe squad, his medical classification 

8

 Flemons had a health and classification restriction for “jobs needing visual acc.” 

from June 4, 2009, through November 4, 2018. Byers Declaration at ¶ 8; Doc. No. 88-6 

at 3. Flemons has not had any health and classification restrictions about his vision since 

November 4, 2018. Byers Declaration at ¶ 9; Doc. No. 88-6; Doc. No. 88-7, Health and 

Classification Restrictions. 

9

 It is not clear whether the committee members met in person or in some other 

manner. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 10 of 18
was M2. See Doc. No. 88-7, November 4, 2018 Health Services Encounter, at 4, 6 

(showing M2 classification on November 4, 2018, and on June 16, 2022). 

Additionally, Flemons had no health or classification restrictions in place that would 

have prevented him from being assigned to hoe squad. Westbrook Declaration at ¶ 

7; Byers Declaration at ¶ 8-9. See also Doc. No. 88-5, Grievance EA-24-00242 

Worksheet (in response to a grievance field by Flemons, Westbrook stated she does 

not make entries in the health classification restrictions, but only uses them to assign 

jobs); Doc. No. 88-6, Other Actions/Procedures/Referrals (showing no medical 

restrictions listed since 2018 for Flemons). And finally, at the time Flemons was 

assigned to the hoe squad, the classification committee representative from Wellpath 

did not notify the committee of any reason why he could not be assigned to that job. 

Westbrook Declaration at ¶ 6. 

It is undisputed that Westbrook has no medical training beyond CPR and first 

aid and does not have access to any inmate medical records beyond what is listed in 

their health and classification restrictions and any related attachments. Westbrook 

Declaration at ¶¶ 8-9. 

IV. Analysis

 Flemons’ remaining Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim is 

based on his allegation that Westbrook assigned him to work the hoe squad despite 

her knowledge that he is blind in one eye, has mental and emotional problems, and 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 11 of 18
is unable to physically perform that job.10 Doc. No. 2 at 2. He sues Westbrook in 

both her individual and official capacities. Id. at 5.

A. Individual Capacity Claims 

 Westbrook asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to 

Flemons’ individual capacity claims. Qualified immunity protects government 

officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their 

positions] would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 

Qualified immunity is a question of law and is appropriately resolved on summary 

judgment. McClendon v. Story County Sheriff’s Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 

2005); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). To determine whether a 

defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider two questions: 

(1) do the facts alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional or 

statutory right; and (2) if so, was that right clearly established at the time of the 

defendant’s alleged misconduct. Wright v. United States, 813 F.3d 689, 695 (8th 

Cir. 2015). Courts may exercise “their sound discretion in deciding which of the 

two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of 

10 Flemons also alleges that Westbrook placed him on the hoe squad without a 

classification hearing. Doc. 2 at 2. His due process claims based on the lack of a hearing 

have been dismissed in this case. See Doc. No. 19. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 12 of 18
the circumstances of the particular case at hand.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 

223, 236 (2009). In this case, the Court finds that Flemons fails to establish a 

constitutional violation, as explained below. 

 The Eighth Court of Appeals has set forth the standard for Eighth Amendment 

violations relating to work assignments as follows: 

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual 

punishment” applies to conditions of confinement, see Rhodes v. 

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 345–47, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 

(1981), and prison work assignments fall under the ambit of conditions 

of confinement, Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1993). 

The Eighth Amendment “forbids knowingly compelling an inmate to 

perform labor that is beyond the inmate’s strength, dangerous to his or 

her life or health, or unduly painful,” Sanchez v. Taggart, 144 F.3d 

1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 1998), and requires supervisors to supervise and 

train subordinates to prevent the deprivation of a constitutional right, 

see Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001). 

To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim, Ambrose “must prove both 

an objective element, which asks whether the [risk of harm] was 

sufficiently serious, and a subjective element, which asks whether the 

defendant officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” 

Choate, 7 F.3d at 1373. 

Ambrose v. Young, 474 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2007). 

 There are no disputed issues of material fact in this case. Flemons has come 

forward with no evidence showing that he faced a sufficiently serious risk of harm 

by being assigned to the hoe squad, or that Westbrook was deliberately indifferent 

to any such risk. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 13 of 18
First, Flemons has not established that he is medically unable to work the hoe 

squad. While there is evidence showing that Flemons suffers vision issues (a lazy 

eye and a crossed eye), as well as evidence that he previously had a medical 

restriction based on his own report of being blind in one eye, there is no evidence in 

this record that his vision problems actually render it unsafe for him to work on the 

hoe squad. And there is no genuine dispute that a medical care provider in 2018 

removed the restriction Flemons previously held and determined that Flemons’ 

issues would not render work on the hoe squad unsafe.11 

Second, Westbrook was in no position to determine whether Flemons’ vision 

issues precluded him from working the hoe squad. The record shows that Flemons 

had no health or classification restrictions in place that would have prevented his 

assignment to the hoe squad in 2021; that Westbrook has no significant medical 

training or access to inmate medical records; and that the medical member of the 

classification committee did not inform the committee of any medical concerns with 

11 Flemons attempts to argue that he actually had a medical restriction related to his 

vision in place at the time of his assignment to the hoe squad, and that restriction would 

have prevented that assignment. His claim is speculative at best and is not supported by 

the record. See Flemons’ Declaration at 2; Doc. No. 99, Flemons’ Brief-in-Support, at n. 

2. Flemons’ unsupported statements are insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion 

for summary judgment. See Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902, 909 (8th Cir. 

2010) (quoting Flentje v. First Nat’l Bank of Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (2000) 

(“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.”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 14 of 18
his being assigned to the hoe squad. Additionally, the record indicates that the entire 

committee voted to place Flemons on the hoe squad, not just Westbrook. 

 Flemons maintains he sent Westbrook requests for interviews, stopped her in 

the hallway and told her of his vision problems, and asked her to review his social 

security paperwork. Doc. No. 99, Flemons’ Brief-in-Support, at 4. But for the 

reasons explained above, Westbrook must rely on the restrictions in place and input 

from the Wellpath committee member when making assignments.12 Westbrook 

Declaration at ¶¶ 4, 9. And that Wellpath representative raised no concerns 

according to the documentation of the committee meeting. See Doc. No. 88-2 at 1-

6. 

 Finally, despite Flemons’ arguments to the contrary, Westbrook’s failure to 

hold a hearing before assigning him to the hoe squad does not evidence any 

deliberate indifference on her part. The ADC’s policy regarding work assignments 

does not require a hearing be held before such assignments are made. Rather, it 

12 See e.g., Moore v. Moore, 111 F. App’x 436, 438 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) 

(explaining that “in the absence of a medical lay-in or any other medical confirmation to 

support [the inmate’s] assertions that he was too injured to work, there is no evidence to 

show that [prison] officials were aware that working [in a particular job] posed a risk to 

[the inmate’s] health or safety”) (unpublished). See also Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 

343 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Prison officials lacking medical expertise are entitled to rely on the 

opinions of medical staff regarding inmate diagnosis...”); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 

174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (“[B]ecause [prison officials] lacked medical expertise, they 

cannot be liable for the medical staff's diagnostic decision...”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 15 of 18
states that the committee will meet with the inmate under certain circumstances, such 

as when the inmate is not performing well enough despite his or her best efforts or 

when there are security concerns. See Doc. No. 88-12 at 3. 

 Flemons has failed to establish that his vision issues preclude him from 

assignment to the hoe squad. He also has failed to establish that Westbrook acted 

with deliberate indifference by assigning him to such work. Therefore, Westbrook 

is entitled to qualified immunity on Flemons’ claims against her in her individual 

capacity. 

B. Official Capacity Claims 

 Flemons’ monetary claims against Westbrook in her official capacity are 

barred by sovereign immunity. A suit against a defendant in his or her official 

capacity is in essence a suit against the State of Arkansas, and any official capacity 

claim for monetary damages against that defendant is barred by the doctrine of 

sovereign immunity. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, et al., 491 U.S. 

58, 71 (1989); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431-432 (8th Cir. 1989). 

The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to Flemons’ request for 

injunctive relief. See Larson v. Kempker, 414 F.3d 936, 939-40 (8th Cir. 2005); 

Murphy v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). However, the only 

injunctive relief sought by Flemons in his complaint is the restoration of his class, 

lost good time, and lost privileges resulting from the disciplinaries he has received 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 16 of 18
for refusing to work the hoe squad.13 Doc. No. 2 at 3. Because Flemons’ due process 

claims relating to those disciplinaries have been dismissed, this request for injunctive 

relief is not related to his pending claims in this case and cannot be awarded. See 

Doc. No. 19. 

Flemons also filed two motions for injunctive relief against both Westbrook 

and multiple non-defendants (Doc. Nos. 86-87). He requests that the Court order 

non-defendants “the Medical Department/Emma Hatchett/Jason Palmer Health 

Service Administrator/Assistant Health Services Admin.; Tracy Bennett/Gary 

Kerstein mid-level provider/Doctor and/or any other medical staff responsible” to 

give him the appropriate medical restrictions so that he will not be given an 

inappropriate work assignment. Doc. No. 86 at 2. Flemons also asks the Court to 

direct Westbrook to remove him from the hoe squad or any other inappropriate work 

assignment. Id. at 3. First, the Court cannot award injunctive relief against nondefendants in this case. And second, as the Court has already found that Westbrook 

did not violate Flemons’ rights by assigning him to the hoe squad, his request for an 

13 The Court cannot restore lost good time in a § 1983 suit in any case. A prisoner 

may only pursue the restoration of those good time credits in a federal habeas action, 

after he has exhausted his available remedies in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Edwards 

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643–44; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Portley–El, 

288 F.3d, 1063, 1066–67 (8th Cir. 2002).

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 17 of 18
order directing Westbrook to do so should be denied. He must obtain the appropriate 

health classifications and restrictions through medical personnel.14

V. Conclusion

 For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that Westbrook’s 

motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 88) be granted and Flemons’ claims be 

dismissed with prejudice. Flemons’ motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 86-87) 

should be DENIED. 

 DATED this 16th day of January, 2025. 

___________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

14 Flemons claims that he has filed multiple grievances against Westbrook and the 

medical department regarding his health classifications, but that those grievances “either 

disappear or are not investigated/answered and/or given evasive responses.” Doc. No. 87 

at 1. He also claims he has a pending lawsuit against Tracy Bennett, Gary Kerstein, and 

Hatchett that is related to this case. Doc. No. 86 at n. 1. A review of pending cases filed 

by Flemons in this district shows that he has a case pending against these defendants 

relating to treatment of an alleged scabies infection. See Flemons v. Hatchett, et al., Case 

No. 2:23-cv-123-BSM-ERE. 

Case 4:22-cv-00606-LPR Document 103 Filed 01/16/25 Page 18 of 18