United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 60).
filed his Complaint on March 31, 2016, in the Eastern
District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). His case was transferred
to this District on April 12, 2016. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff
filed a Supplement to his Complaint clarifying the relief he
was requesting on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Amend his Complaint on July 6, 2016 (ECF No. 9),
which was denied. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff filed another
Motion to Amend (ECF No. 28), which was granted in part on
April 10, 2017. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff's proposed
Amended Complaint was then filed as his Amended Complaint on
April 10, 2017. (ECF No. 43).
alleges Defendants failed to protect him from being assaulted
by other inmates on two occasions while he was incarcerated
in the Sebastian County Detention Center (SCDC). Plaintiff
alleges these incidents occurred during the third and fourth
week of December 2015 through January 2016. (ECF No. 43 at
6). Plaintiff alleges two kitchen supervisors labelled him a
snitch in front of other inmates, causing him to be beaten by
those inmates. He alleges he reported this to Defendants, who
did not remove him from the situation or punish anyone,
resulting in his second beating at the hands of the same
inmates. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges it is the custom
of staff at SCDC to give the names of informants or suspected
informants to other inmates so that the inmates will beat the
informants. (Id. at 11).
alleges he was denied medical care for approximately two
weeks after his beatings. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges
it is the custom of SCDC to delay medical treatment for
injuries for up to two to three weeks. (Id. at 12).
attached a document labelled “Statement of Facts
Definitely Defined” to his Complaint form. In this
document he alleges he was beaten first by James Dean,
resulting in a blackened left eye and a bruised back.
(Id. at 8). He alleges he reported the beating on
the inmate kiosk that night. (Id.). He alleges he
was then beaten by three or four inmates for the second
incident. He alleges he asked for help on the inmate kiosk
proceeds on these claims in both official and personal
capacity against all Defendants. (Id. at 6, 11). He
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on November 20, 2017.
(ECF No. 60). On November 27, 2017, the Court entered an
Order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion by
December 18, 2017. (ECF No. 63). Plaintiff responded on
December 20, 2017, but did not include his Required Statement
of Disputed Facts with his Response. Instead, he included a
copy of the “Statement of Facts Definitely
Defined” previously attached to his Amended Complaint,
a document labelled “Supporting Facts to My Claim,
” and several affidavits. (ECF No. 64). On March 7,
2018, the Court entered a Show Cause Order directing to
Plaintiff submit his Statement of Disputed Facts by March 28,
2018. (ECF No. 66). Plaintiff submitted a document labelled
Disputed Facts on March 29, 2018. (ECF No. 67).
judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record
“shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Once a party
moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing,
the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth
specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that
a genuine issue of material fact exists.” National
Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607
(8th Cir. 1999).
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586.
“They must show there is sufficient evidence to support
a jury verdict in their favor.” National Bank,
165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded
on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a
motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing
Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir.
1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different
stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the
record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court
should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of
ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
argue summary judgment should be granted in their favor for
the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to provide proof
that any of the named Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his safety or medical needs; and, (2) as there
were no constitutional violations, he failed to provide proof