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.

Brown v. Moore

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division

March 18, 2015

DANIEL RAY BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHERIFF MIKE MOORE; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JASON DAY; NURSE MANDY JONES; FORMER SHERIFF DANNY HICKMAN; DETECTIVE RYAN WATSON; and CAPTAIN BOB KING, DEFENDANTS

Order Filed: February 3, 2015

Page 1033

Daniel Ray Brown, Plaintiff, Pro se, Harrison, AR.

For Sheriff Mike Moore, Jail Administrator Jason Day, Nurse Mandy Jones, Former Sheriff Danny Hickman, Defendants: Colin P. Wall, Rainwater Holt Sexton, Little Rock, AR.

Page 1034

ORDER

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (" R & R" ) (Doc. 64) filed in this case on February 3, 2015, by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas, regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55). More than fourteen (14) days have passed without objections being filed by the parties; accordingly, the Court finds that the R & R should be, and hereby is, APPROVED and ADOPTED. However, the Court finds it necessary to clarify which of Brown's many claims have been dismissed and which remain in this lawsuit as discussed below.

Brown maintains that while incarcerated at Boone County Detention Center (" BCDC" ), his constitutional rights were violated because: (1) he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement by being housed with inmates who had genital herpes and staph infections; (2) he was not provided an adequate diet; (3) he was forced to watch CNN news coverage continually without access to local news unless he was able to obtain a copy of the local newspaper; (4) the detention center officers were not properly trained in the use of tasers and pepper spray and used these to intimidate him; (5) he was not provided a safe environment and was fearful of one inmate who made threats and racial slurs in general; (6) he was discriminated against when Defendants failed to investigate his kidnapping allegations; (7) personal mail was restricted to post cards only; and (8) he was denied access to a law

Page 1035

library.[1] The Court adopts the detailed facts as set forth in the R & R, and those will not be recounted in this Order.

The Magistrate recommends that all claims identical to ones Brown has asserted in his other cases before this Court should be either dismissed as duplicative or barred by res judicata . These include Brown's claim that BCDC officers were not properly trained in the use of tasers and pepper spray; the claim that he was discriminated against when Defendants failed to investigate his kidnapping allegations; all claims against Watson and King; and the denial of access to a law library. The Magistrate further recommends that Defendants' Motion be granted as to: (1) Brown's allegations of inadequate diet; (2) exposure to high levels of noise; (3) being housed in an unsafe environment; and (4) all official capacity claims against Defendants. However, the Magistrate opined that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment regarding Brown's allegations as to whether: (1) being housed with an inmate with a staph infection constitutes deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights; (2) he had access to a newspaper; and (3) remaining Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the surviving claims.

The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that the R & R (Doc. 64) should be and hereby is ADOPTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to the following claims:

(1) failure to provide an adequate diet;

(2) failure to train officers in the use of tasers and pepper spray, as this is barred by res judicata as duplicative of Brown's allegation in Case No. 5:13-CV-03065;

(3) denial of access to the law library, as this is barred by res judicata as duplicative of Brown's allegation in Case No. 3:12-CV-03150;

(4) failure to investigate Brown's kidnapping allegations, as this is barred by res judicata as duplicative of his allegation in Case No. 3:12-CV-03150;

(5) housing Brown in an unsafe environment;

(6) exposing Brown to high levels of noise;

(7) restricting personal mail to post cards only, as this is barred by res judciata as duplicative of Brown's allegations in Case No. 3:12-CV-03150; and

(8) official-capacity claims against all Defendants. All of the above claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, all claims against Separate Defendants Bob King and Ryan Watson are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Motion is DENIED with respect to the following claims:

(1) alleged constitutional violations due to being housed with an inmate with a staph infection;

(2) lack of access to a newspaper; and

(3) Defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity on these two remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

HON. MARK E. FORD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Page 1036

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.

The events that give rise to this case occurred while the Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Boone County Detention Center (BCDC). Plaintiff maintains his constitutional rights were violated when: (1) he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement by being housed with inmates who had genital herpes and staph infection; (2) he was not provided with an adequate diet; (3) he was forced to watch CNN news coverage continually and had no access to local news unless he was lucky enough to get a copy of the local newspaper; (4) the detention officers were not properly trained in regard to the use of tasers and pepper spray and used these chemical agents for intimidation purposes; (5) he was not provided with a safe environment and was fearful of one inmate who was yelling, making threats, and using racial slurs; (6) he was discriminated against when Defendants failed to investigate his kidnaping; (7) personal mail was restricted to post cards only; (8) he was not given an opportunity for outside exercise; and (9) he was denied access to a law library.

The case is currently before me on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55). Plaintiff requested that the Court assist him in responding by the preparation of a questionnaire. A questionnaire was prepared and sent to the Plaintiff (Doc. 61). Plaintiff has ...


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.