United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
CHARLES E. HAMNER, ADC #143063 PLAINTIFF
WENDY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS
Procedures for Filing Objections
Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been
sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written
objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be
specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the
objection. To be considered, objections must be received in
the office of the Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of
objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, parties may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
E. Hamner, an Arkansas Department of Correction
("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit without the help
of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2)
The Court screened Mr. Hamner's complaint, as required by
the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), and
allowed him to proceed on retaliation claims against
Defendants Waddle and Naylor. (#2) Later, Mr. Hamner added
retaliation claims against Defendants Kelley, White, and
Reed. (#35, #44) The Court has already dismissed claims,
however, against Defendants Kelley, Naylor, White, and Reed.
(#73) Therefore, Mr. Hamner's retaliation claim against
Defendant Waddle is the only remaining claim.
Waddle has now moved for summary judgment. (#89) Mr. Hamner
has responded to the motion, and Defendant Waddle has
replied. (#95, #96, #97) In addition, Mr. Hamner has moved
for summary judgment. (#86)
judgment is appropriate only when the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there
is no real dispute about the facts that are important to the
outcome of the case. FED. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986);
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246
(1986). As moving party, Defendant Waddle bears the burden of
producing admissible evidence showing that there is no real
dispute. If he offers such evidence, Mr. Hamner is obligated
to meet evidence with evidence if he is to avoid summary
August 6, 2015, Mr. Hamner filed a complaint with the
Arkansas Claims Commission ("Claims Commission").
(#2 at p.9O) In that action, Mr. Hamner complained that, in
November 2014, ADC officials violated ADC policy by failing
to provide him a written explanation of the charges against
him within 72 hours of placing him on investigative status.
In his complaint before the Claims Commission, Mr. Hamner
specifically charged that Defendant Waddle lacked the
authority to hold a disciplinary hearing on the charge at
issue because Mr. Hamner had not received a written
explanation of the charges against him within 72 hours. On
February 11, 2016, Mr. Hamner's action before the Claims
Commission was dismissed. (Id. at p.93)
that action remained pending, however, on October 22, 2015,
Corporal Kendra Hopson (not a party to this lawsuit) was
working at barracks 9, zone 3, of the Tucker Unit when she
observed Mr. Hamner fall under the dayroom benches. (#90-3 at
p.l) According to the incident report, Mr. Hamner was
incoherent; his eyes were bloodshot; and his speech was
slurred. (Id.) Mr. Hamner stated, "I need help.
I need help." (#90-1 at p.8)
Hopson called for assistance, and Mr. Hamner was escorted to
the infirmary. (#90-3 at p.l) Corporal Hopson charged Mr.
Hamner with being under the influence of illegal drugs,
alcohol, or other chemical substance. (#90-3 at p.6) At the
disciplinary hearing, ...