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.

Hamner v. Kelley

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

December 19, 2017

CHARLES E. HAMNER, ADC #143063 PLAINTIFF
v.
WENDY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This 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 this Recommendation.

         If no 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.

         II. Background

         Charles 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.

         Defendant 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)

         III. Discussion

         A. Standard

         Summary 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 judgment.

         B. Factual History

         On 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)

         While 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)

         Corporal 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, ...


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.