United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
Nicholas Addison filed a pro se complaint on May 8,
2015, challenging the conditions of his cell when he was held
at the Poinsett County Detention Center, and naming as the
only defendant Joey Martin, the detention center's
administrator. He sued Martin in both his individual and
official capacities. Doc. No. 2. Addison asserts a number of
conditions of confinement claims, including that his cell was
too hot, the heat in the cell caused the walls and floors to
sweat, and caused a bad odor. Addison claims much of the odor
came from a drain in the cell. According to Addison:
Joey Martin is keepin us up here in this hot cell there is no
air cerculation in me and my brother is burning up. Our vent
has nothin but dust and mold in it. It is very hard to sleep
in a cell when it is stinking and hot and the lights
don't go out...
further alleges he was only allowed to leave the cell on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays, to shower, and also that
jail officials would not give him cleaning supplies. Finally,
Addison contends someone opened his legal mail, and a smoke
alarm was put into his cell but not others.
27, 2016, Martin filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief
in support, and a statement of facts on the merits of the
case. Doc. Nos. 39-41. Addison did not respond, and Martin
filed a motion to deem his statement of facts admitted. Doc.
No. 48. For the reasons set forth below, Martin's motion
to deem his statement of facts admitted is granted, and
Martin is entitled to summary judgment.
Standard of review
Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c); 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 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). 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
summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis,
Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
of Confinement/Opening of Legal Mail Claims.
Addison's complaint primarily challenges the conditions
of his confinement at the Poinsett County Detention Center.
According to the complaint, Addison was a pre-trial detainee
at the time he was held in the challenged conditions. As a
pre-trial detainee, Addison's claims are analyzed under
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause rather than
the Eighth Amendment. Owens v. Scott County Jail,
328 F.3d 1026, 1027 (8th Cir. 2003). Addison's due
process rights were violated if the jail's conditions of
confinement constituted punishment. Id. However,
because, “[u]nder the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial
detainees are entitled to ‘at least as great'
protection as that afforded convicted prisoners under the
Eighth Amendment, ” courts apply the identical
deliberate-indifference standard as that applied to
conditions-of confinement claims made by convicts.
Id. (quoting City of Revere v. Mass. Gen.
Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983)); see also Whitnack
v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994).
prevail on a conditions of confinement claim, Addison must
show: (1) the conditions were serious enough to deprive him
of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,
or to constitute a substantial risk of serious harm, and (2)
officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmates'
health and safety. Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265,
268 (8th Cir.1996); Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff
Dept., 41 Fed.Appx. 906 (8th Cir. 2002)(unpub. per
has not responded to Martin's statement of undisputed
material facts. Local Rule 56.1 provides that a party moving
for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 must also
file a statement of material facts it contends are not in
dispute. It also requires the non-moving party, if it opposes
the motion, to file a separate statement of the material
facts it contends are genuinely disputed. Finally, Local Rule
56.1 provides that “[a]ll material facts set forth in
the statement filed by the moving party...shall be deemed
admitted unless controverted by the statement filed by the
non-moving party....” See Local Rule 56.1, Rules of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
was notified by a July 1, 2016 court order that if he opposed
the motion for summary judgment, he must file a statement of
disputed facts. The order specifically provides that
“[w]hile Addison is not required to file a response to
Martin's motion for summary judgment, if he does not
respond, the Court can assume that the facts set out in
Martin's statement of facts...are true.” Doc. No.
42. Because Addison failed to respond to Martin's motion
for summary judgment and statement of undisputed facts,
Martin's motion to deem those facts admitted is granted.
Doc. No. 48. In addition to the statement of undisputed facts
Martin filed, his motion for summary judgment also relies on
his affidavit, the Housing and Sanitation Policy applicable
to the Poinsett County Detention Center, and Health
Department Criminal ...