Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05205/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05205-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carter
Defendant
David Daniels
Plaintiff
Faulkenbury
Defendant
Keith Ferguson
Defendant
Nance
Defendant
Petray
Defendant
Tomlin
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

DAVID DANIELS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5205

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON;

CAPTAIN PETRAY; LT. CARTER;

SGT. FAULKENBURY; SGT. NANCE;

and SGT. TOMLIN DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 17th day of July 2008, come on for consideration

the following:

* defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (document #43);

* the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge

("R&R") (document #56); 

* plaintiff's Motion To Sue Defendants In Both Capacity's

[sic] (document #60); and 

* plaintiff's Objections To Recommendations Of Summery

[sic] Judgment By Defendant (document #61), 

and the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and

orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter centers on his

allegation that while he was incarcerated at the Benton County

Detention Center ("BCDC") he was kept on "lock down" from January

10, 2006, until April, 2007, on various trumped-up charges, with

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

no notice, no hearing, and no right to appeal. He further alleges

that while on lock down he was denied showers, visits, and phone

calls, as well as a sleeping mat and tennis shoes that had been

prescribed because of back pain.

2. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate

Judge, to assist plaintiff -- who is pro se -- in responding,

furnished him with a questionnaire addressing the various issues

in his case. After plaintiff returned this document, the

Magistrate Judge made his Report And Recommendation ("R&R") to the

Court. In it, he noted that he had construed the Complaint to be

asserted against the defendants in both their individual and

official capacities. There is no objection to this aspect of the

R&R, and the Court will grant plaintiff's motion to amend his

Complaint.

3. The Magistrate Judge analyzed plaintiff's claims under

the standard applicable to a pretrial detainee, a more lenient

standard than that applicable to a convicted prisoner, because it

was unclear when, in the course of the events alleged, plailntiff

was convicted and his status changed. 

It is axiomatic that a pretrial detainee may not be punished

for the crime of which he stands accused. He may, however, be

required to abide by the conditions and restrictions of his

confinement, to the extent those conditions and restrictions are

reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, under

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

the Supreme Court's decision in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520

(1979).

Implicit in the R&R is the finding that plaintiff was placed

in lock down as punishment for infractions of legitimate prison

rules, rather than for the crime of which he was accused. The

Magistrate Judge reported that plaintiff was given written notice

of the disciplinary violations, and an opportunity to respond. He

also reported that even if the disciplinary charges were

fabricated, there was no constitutional violation because a

prisoner does not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom from

false charges. To the extent that plaintiff's privileges and his

access to hygiene items, exercise, and medical care were

restricted, the Magistrate Judge reported that these restrictions

did not attain constitutional dimensions. The Magistrate Judge

recommended that defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment be

granted, and that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with

prejudice.

4. Plaintiff makes the following objections to the R&R:

(a) that he was not given notice or a hearing with regard to

any disciplinary violation;

(b) that he was placed in segregation for the crime of which

he was accused, and because of his race;

(c) that defendants took his soap, toilet paper, clean

clothes, and "a hygiene shave" for "over 7 months";

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

(d) that the vents in his cell did not work, leaving him

without heat from January 10, 2006, to April, 2006, and without

air conditioning in the summer of 2006;

(e) that he was not allowed out of his cell for exercise for

seven months, and could not exercise in his cell due to rashes

where his skin rubbed;

(f) that he was deprived of phone calls and visits for ten

months;

(g) that he has "several severe medical conditions" that

were deliberately ignored by defendants; and

(h) that 255 days in isolation is excessive, and constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment.

5. Summary judgment should be granted when the record,

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and

giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Walsh v. United States,

31 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is not appropriate

unless all the evidence points toward one conclusion and is

susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of

the nonmoving party. Hardin v. Hussmann Corp., 45 F.3d 262 (8th

Cir. 1995). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the

non-existence of a genuine factual dispute; however, once the

moving party has met that burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

on its pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing the

existence of a genuine dispute. City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v.

Associated Electric Co-op, 838 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1988).

6. Plaintiff first objects that he was never given notice

or a hearing with regard to any disciplinary violation. Due

process in prison disciplinary proceedings requires twenty-four

hours "advance written notice of the claimed violation and a

written statement of the factfinders as to the evidence relied

upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken." Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974).

The evidence with regard to whether plaintiff was given

notice or a hearing as to his many disciplinary violations is as

follows:

* According to the Benton County Sheriff's Office County

Jail Policy & Procedures (the "Policy"), any violation of BCDC

rules that warrants more than a verbal reprimand is to be

documented on an inmate disciplinary action form ("IDAF"), and an

incident report is to be generated. These documents are forwarded

to the shift supervisor, who forwards them to the Jail Lieutenant

for "review and final disposition." The jail commander or his

designee then reviews all disciplinary action taken, and copies of

the reports are placed in the inmate's file.

* While the Policy does not set forth any requirement that

the IDAF be served on the inmate, the IDAF itself has a place to

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

indicate "DATE AND TIME CHARGES SERVED." This information was

filled in on almost all of plaintiff's disciplinaries.

* One IDAF, dated 9/23/06, did not show any action taken,

and included the notation "not served in time."

* A comparison of the information written in the space

marked "DETAILS OF HEARING, WITNESS(ES), RESPONSE OF INMATE (USE

REVERSE IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS REQUIRED)" with information

supplied by plaintiff in his Response To Summary Judgment Motion

indicates that plaintiff was actually heard in response to at

least one of his disciplinaries. The IDAF dated May 14, 2006, at

first listed the offense as "conduct which disrupts or interferes

with the security or orderly running of operations in the jail."

This is crossed out and "fighting," is written in. The "RESPONSE

OF INMATE" is noted as "there was no fight at all." The Hearing

Deputy was Sgt. Nance. In his Response To Summary Judgment

Motion, plaintiff states with regard to this IDAF, "[t]here was no

fight, Sgt. Nance changed the disciplinary to fighting!" In

addition, in his Response To Summary Judgment Motion, plaintiff

admits receiving written notice and a hearing with regard to this

IDAF. 

* Some notations on the IDAFs contain details that the

Court believes could only have come from plaintiff. They are too

particularized to his allegations to have been concocted. For

example, the IDAF of May 17, 2006, notes that plaintiff "stated

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

Cpl. Tomlin is out to get him along with other Deputies. He

stated Tomlin has even hid his PRN meds from him and did it just

the other day at 5 a.m. He stated he is having problems with these

people since he got here." On the IDAF dated November 25, 2006,

the "RESPONSE OF INMATE" is "[t]hat bed roll ain't mine!" and

"[p]ut it in there that I said, 'Tomlin's up to his old tricks

again'."

* In his Response To Summary Judgment Motion, plaintiff

acknowledges that he appealed nine of his disciplinaries. 

* Two disciplinaries dated 9/6/06 were reversed on appeal.

When the foregoing is considered, the Court believes there

can be no dispute that plaintiff was given notice of his

disciplinaries. The IDAFs so indicate, and in one case where the

IDAF was not served in time, no further action was taken.

Plaintiff appealed many of the disciplinaries, which he could not

have done without knowing about them. The notations with regard

to plaintiff's responses are -- at least in some instances --

consistent with his recollection of the incidents or with his

assertions in this case. This objection will, therefore, be

overruled.

7. Plaintiff objects that he was placed in lock down for

the crime of which he was accused, and because of his race. He

offers no evidence that would support this objection, and there is

a great deal of evidence to the contrary. A review of the IDAFs

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

reflects that plaintiff was repeatedly in defiance of jail rules

dealing with inmate dress, hoarding and trading food, possession

of unauthorized items, and similar conduct. Each lock down is

explained by conduct violating BCDC rules. In the absence of some

evidence to the contrary, this objection is without merit and will

be overruled.

8. Plaintiff objects that defendants took his soap, toilet

paper, clean clothes, and "a hygiene shave" for "over 7 months,"

contending that this is cruel and unusual punishment. He offers

as evidence an Incident Report where a cellmate asked to be moved

because "Daniels had not taken a shower in a long time and . . .

Daniels and the cell stinks."

The Court notes, however, that plaintiff's Activity Report

indicates that he was out to court appearances on 24 different

occasions between December 28, 2005, and March 15, 2007. It could

hardly have gone unnoticed by his attorneys, and the judge(s)

before whom he appeared, if he had not had access to soap, toilet

paper, clean clothes, or a shave for several months. 

Other documents in the record also reflect that plaintiff was

not deprived of these hygiene items. He received a disciplinary on

May 16, 2006, for disobeying the order of a deputy. The IDAF

reflects that after getting a "court shave," he went in to the

shower, and was disciplined because he did not have permission to

do so. The IDAF further reflects that plaintiff claimed Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

Bennett told him to take a shower. 

In a Grievance dated June 28, 2006, plaintiff complained that

"Cpl Tomlins back at his old tricks again using new officers to

put pressure on me. He made the Officer Foster take my soapshampoo + towel, so I couldn't take a shower." 

In a Grievance dated September 26, 2006, plaintiff complained

"I have rashes from not taken [sic] a shower every day, I need a

shower every day, lockdowns if lucky to get one every 3 days is

not enough, its bad enough this facility does not have deoderant

for inmates or the necessary black people care produces [sic]. .

. ." 

In a Grievance dated December 3, 2006, plaintiff complained

about "officers getting there [sic] days mix-up [sic] for shower

day so I go without one for a week or so."

The foregoing evidence -- including documents written and

signed by plaintiff himself -- demonstrates that he did not go for

seven months without a shower, and his frequent contact with the

court system is evidence that he did not go without other hygiene

items such as toilet paper for that period of time. This

objection will be overruled.

9. Plaintiff objects that the vents in his cell did not

work, leaving him without heat in the winter and air conditioning

in the summer. The documentary evidence, however, is that

plaintiff -- or someone -- covered the vents with paper. In a

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-10-

Grievance dated September 27, 2006, plaintiff complained that he

was given a disciplinary for "a covered vent thats been cover

[sic] for a while by somebody else who was on the top bunk b/c the

A/C shots [sic] right in there [sic] face. . . ." This objection

is without merit and will be overruled.

10. Plaintiff objects that he was not allowed out of his

cell for exercise for seven months, and could not exercise in his

cell due to rashes where his skin rubbed. Plaintiff also complains

about the BCDC taking his special shoes, apparently prescribed

because of a back condition. He contends that he needed these

shoes in order to exercise. 

Lack of exercise claims analyzed under the Eighth Amendment

"deliberate indifference" standard indicate that lack of exercise

may be a constitutional violation if an inmate's health suffers,

and that a court should consider the opportunities for in-cell and

out-of-cell exercise, size of the cell, and duration of

confinement. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992).

District Courts in this Circuit have held that an hour of exercise

outside one's cell is required in order to comply with the Eighth

Amendment. See Covington v. Greenwell, 2006 WL 3247215 (E.D. Mo.

2006), and cases cited therein.

Plaintiff alleges that he was locked down for 255 days, and

could not exercise in his cell. Plaintiff's BCDC Activity Report

reflects rather sporadic recreational opportunities, and further

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-11-

reflects that he was not out of his cell for recreation at all

between June 21, 2006, and September 13, 2006, and between October

9, 2006, and March 15, 2007. The Court finds a genuine issue of

fact about whether plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to

exercise, sufficient to implicate his constitutional rights under

the standards applicable to a pre-trial detainee, which are more

generous than those applicable under the Eighth Amendment. This

objection will be sustained, and summary judgment will be denied

as to this issue.

11. Plaintiff objects that he was deprived of phone calls

and visits for ten months. The phone call Detail Report covering

December 28, 2005, to January 5, 2007, shows that plaintiff made

or attempted numerous calls in January, February, and March of

2006. There were only seven calls in April, 2006, none in May,

two in June, and one in July. The Detail Report shows no calls

after July, 2006. 

The Policy states "Telephone communications is a 'right' when

an unsentenced offender is first received." A document headed

"Inmate Telephone System Notice" and signed by plaintiff on

December 28, 2005, says BCDC "allows inmates to make calls as a

privilege only." 

A notation by Captain Petray on a Grievance dated January 27,

2006, is that "Lockdowns can only use the phone for legal or

bondsman calls not personal calls." The Policy -- or that part of

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-12-

it shown to the Court -- does not say anything about loss of

privileges during lock downs. 

Loss of privileges is a recognized disciplinary tool in

incarceration. Loss of rights is a different matter. Since it is

unknown when plaintiff ceased being, as the Policy rather

presumptively describes it, an "unsentenced offender," and since

the two written policy statements about use of the telephone are

contradictory, the Court finds that a question of fact exists with

regard to whether BCDC deprived plaintiff of a right to telephone

communications at a time when he had not been convicted of any

crime. This objection has merit, and summary judgment will be

denied as to it.

As regards visitation, the Policy includes three full pages

of regulations, commencing with the statement that 'Inmates are

encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends."

Visitors are required to sign a "visitation log," but no such log

was presented as evidence in support of or in opposition to the

Motion for Summary Judgment. The Activity Report, however, shows

five visits by plaintiff's attorney between December 28, 2005, and

October 30, 2006, and no visits from anyone else. Giving

plaintiff the favorable inferences he is due from these facts, the

Court concludes that a genuine issue of material fact is made out

as to whether plaintiff was unconstitutionally deprived of

visitation. This objection has merit, and summary judgment will

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-13-

be denied as to this issue.

12. Plaintiff objects that he has "several severe medical

conditions" that were deliberately ignored by defendants. Medical

information given by plaintiff when he was booked on December 28,

2005, was that he had asthma and that his right shoulder was hurt.

No other medical problems were noted. However, plaintiff

submitted a Medical Request that same day, saying he needed not

only his asthma inhaler, but medication for staph infection, high

blood pressure and "trigarmonis." The BCDC doctor, Dr. Mullins,

examined plaintiff the next day and found no staph infection, no

evidence of asthma, and low rather than high blood pressure. Dr.

Mullins prescribed a medication for "Trichimonas."

On January 5, 2006, Dr. Mullins again saw plaintiff, for

complaints of leg pain from falling down stairs. Plaintiff was

uncooperative in the physical exam, and Dr. Mullins believed that

he was malingering.

On January 30 and 31, 2006, Dr. Mullins treated plaintiff for

what plaintiff thought was a blood clot in his left leg, but what

proved to be some swelling of the left calf and a bruised ankle.

On February 16, 2006, Dr. Mullins found "very mild asthma,"

and "some discomfort in the left hip" that did not appear serious.

On March 7, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff for back and leg

pain. Plaintiff was uncooperative, and Dr. Mullins found he had

exaggerated his symptoms, had a "bad attitude," and was "very

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-14-

negative."

On April 24, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff for complaints

of high blood pressure, dizzy spells, and blood in his urine.

Plaintiff's blood pressure was normal. Urine was taken for

analysis.

On May 4, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff for complaints of

left shoulder pain and a knot in his back. No specific problem

was found.

On May 5, 2006, the response on a Medical Request to see the

doctor for "pain & blood pressure & hypertension" was "Dr.

reviewed your record and states "He has already examined you."

Will not see you for the same complaints over and over again. You

are abusing the medical system."

On May 23, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff with complaints

that plaintiff wanted his "special shoes" and had bleeding from

his buttocks. No such bleeding was found, and Dr. Mullins was

going to look into the issue of the special shoes, although noting

that "[h]e's been in here since December and this is the first

time that he's made any request for special shoes."

On May 30, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff for complaints of

bleeding from his penis. No bleeding was found. Plaintiff also

asked for a midnight snack and complained of a staph infection in

his leg, back pain, and a lost filling in his tooth. No infection

was found, and a straight leg raising test was negative. Dr.

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-15-

Mullins opined that plaintiff was a "just a hypochondriac" and

might be seeking drugs.

On July 6, 2006, Dr. Mullins saw plaintiff again about the

issue of the special shoes. Plaintiff said his back was "killing

him." Dr. Mullins told plaintiff that he did not need shoes, and,

after plaintiff walked out in mid-consultation, noted "[h]e

definitely has a very negative attitude and always has multiple

complaints but nothing serious."

There are no doctor's notes after this point, although the

record reflects that plaintiff was allowed the use of his asthma

inhaler through mid-August. There is no explanation for why the

medical record stops where it does. The absence of any records is

not, however, evidence that serious medical problems were being

ignored. None of the medical problems asserted by plaintiff

during the period covered by the medical record proved to be

particularly serious, and plaintiff does not identify any others.

This objection will be overruled.

13. Finally, plaintiff objects that 255 days in isolation is

excessive, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. If it

were the case that plaintiff had been held in isolation for that

period of time as punishment for any one infraction of the rules,

the Court would agree with him. However, the evidence reflects

that plaintiff continually and repeatedly violated BCDC rules and

regulations, leading to numerous short lock downs, which added up

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-16-

to a lot of time in isolation. There is no evidence that this was

a situation outside of plaintiff's own control. For this reason,

the Court finds this final objection without merit, and it will be

overruled.

14. Because plaintiff made a timely demand for jury trial in

this matter, those issues as to which summary judgment is not

granted will be scheduled for jury trial at the Court's

convenience.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Sue

Defendants In Both Capacity's [sic] (document #60) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Objections To

Recommendations Of Summery [sic] Judgment By Defendant (document

#61) are sustained in part and overruled in part. The Objections

are sustained to the extent they object to the R&R as it pertains

to plaintiff's claims that he was denied rights to exercise, make

telephone calls, and have visits. The Objections are overruled as

to all other issues.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge (document #56) is adopted in part, and that

defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (document #43) is granted

in part and denied in part. All issues raised by plaintiff --

other than his claims that he was denied rights to exercise, make

telephone calls, and have visits -- are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's claims that he was denied rights to exercise,

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
-17-

make telephone calls, and have visits will be set down for jury

trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05205-JLH Document 62 Filed 07/17/08 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>