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.

Fudge v. Harris

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

January 14, 2016

JAMES C. FUDGE, ADC #78875, Plaintiff,
v.
GRANT HARRIS, et al., Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

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

Plaintiff Fudge is a state inmate incarcerated at the Varner Super Max (VSM) Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging violations of due process connected with his continuous assignment to administrative segregation, punitive isolation, and the VSM Behavior Modification Incentive Level Program[1] for fifteen years. (Doc. No. 4, p. 4) Plaintiff asks for monetary and injunctive relief, including transfer to the Tucker or Wrightsville Unit. ( Id., p. 6)

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 40-42), to which Plaintiff filed a Response, Brief, and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 50-52).

II. Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 4)

Plaintiff states he was committed to the ADC in 1999, and alleges he has been housed indefinitely in solitary or administrative confinement for more than eight years, based on his past history misconduct. (Doc. No. 4, p. 4) He claims that the periodic reviews conducted by Defendants were meaningless and retaliatory, due to his past misconduct. (Id.) He also claims he was housed in administrative segregation (ad-seg), the incentive program, and punitive isolation continuously for fifteen years, thereby creating an atypical and significant hardship in violation of his due process rights. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Harris told him in February, 2006, that Plaintiff would die in a solitary cell before Harris voted to release him, and that Defendant Jackson vowed never to release Plaintiff to general population in November, 2007. (Id.) He protests a review conducted in August, 2010, which placed him in the 18-month incentive level program, and states that the periodic reviews conducted during his time in that program were meaningless and retaliatory, and based on his past misconduct. (Id.) Defendant ...


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.