Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coleman v. Lockhart

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division

August 13, 2014

DELWRICK D. COLEMAN, ADC #656538 Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS LOCKHART, et al. Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

I. Introduction

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 48), and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 51). Plaintiff's Motion is construed as his Response to Defendants' Motion, and Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 52).

Plaintiff Delwrick Coleman is a state inmate incarcerated at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging excessive force against Defendants Lockhart and Eldridge, and a state law tort claim of assault and battery against Defendant Lockhart.[1] He asks for declaratory and monetary relief.

II. Complaint

According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants initiated a "hostile and vulgar verbal confrontation" with him early in the morning of April 22, 2012. (Doc. No. 2, p. 3.) Later that morning, Eldridge yelled into Plaintiff's cell for him to remove a blanket which he had hung from the bars of his cell. (Id.) When Plaintiff refused, because he needed the blanket to block light which contributed to migraine headaches, Eldridge called for backup and Lockhart responded. (Id.) Eldridge also falsely told Lockhart that Plaintiff had a noose tied around his neck and tried to tie it to the vent. (Id.)

Lockhart then removed the blanket from the bars and Plaintiff jumped down off the sink where he was standing in order to pick up his blanket. (Id., p. 4.) When Lockhart ordered Plaintiff not to put the blanket back up on the cell bars, Coleman verbally responded, and the two argued. (Id.) Lockhart pulled out his can of mace and sprayed Plaintiff several times, in violation of ADC policy which requires a minimum amount of force only when an inmate threatens bodily harm to himself or others. (Id.) Plaintiff claims the used of force was not justified and was excessive, because he did not threaten anyone, was not ordered to produce an item, and was not ordered to relocate. (Id.)

Another officer (Lt. Lane) arrived, and ordered Plaintiff restrained. (Id.) Although Plaintiff refused the first order, he complied with a second order after Lt. Lane obtained more mace and another officer arrived with a video camera. (Id., p. 5.) He then was taken to the shower to be de-contaminated. (Id.) Plaintiff complains that Lockhart failed to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.