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.

Hendley v. Guthrie

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division

August 13, 2018

THOMAS MCLEAN HENDLEY, Reg. #54647-019 PLAINTIFF
v.
TRACY GUTHRIE, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedure for Filing Objections

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party to this suit may file written objections with the Clerk of Court by August 27, 2018. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. By not objecting, the right to appeal questions of fact may be jeopardized. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.

         II. Background

         Thomas McLean Hendley, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City, Arkansas (“FCI-FC”), originally filed this lawsuit as a habeas corpus petition. (Docket entry #1) He later notified the Court that he had mistakenly filed the case as a habeas petition when he intended to file claims under Bivens. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (#7)

         In his complaint, Mr. Hendley alleged that he was denied the ability to communicate with his family, friends, and attorney because he was barred from using the Bureau of Prison's email system, TRULINCS. Mr. Hendley attached papers to his complaint indicating that he was restricted from using email correspondence due to his conviction for possessing and distributing child pornography. In addition, he complained of discrimination based on the nature of his conviction, that is, possession of child pornography.

         Mr. Hendley later filed an amended complaint further explaining his Bivens claims and adding claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). (#12)

         The Court dismissed Mr. Hendley's first amendment claim, as well as his access-to-courts claim; but, Mr. Hendley was allowed to proceed on his FTCA claim and his equal protection claim. (#13)

         Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a supplemental motion to dismiss all remaining claims. (#34, #36) Because they attached exhibits in support of their motions, the Court converted the motions and notified the parties that it would consider the motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment. (#41) The Court gave the parties an opportunity to file additional evidence and statements of undisputed facts. (Id.) In response, Defendants filed a statement of undisputed facts. (#43) Mr. Hendley filed a response to the Defendants' motions. (#44)

         Later, the Court notified the parties that the Court would consider whether to grant summary judgment on the equal protection claim as well other claims, even though Defendants had not addressed Mr. Hendley's equal protection claim in their motions. The Court gave the parties additional time to file supplemental responses. (#45)

         On May 30, 2018, Defendants filed a supplement to their motions to dismiss.[1] In that supplement, Defendants notified the Court that Mr. Hendley had been granted access to TRULINCS e-mail in May of 2018, and argued that his constitutional claims arising from his denial to email access were moot. (#48)

         Mr. Hendley responded with a motion for compensatory damages (#49) and a motion for summary judgment. (#51) In his motion for damages, Mr. Hendley concedes that BOP officials granted him email privileges on May 22, 2018, but notes that access was granted only after he agreed to drop his constitutional challenge to the BOP policy restricting email access. (#49) He argues that he should be allowed to recover his $350 filing fee, $220.95 in copy costs, $39.32 for supplies used in prosecuting this case, $27.93 for postage, and $31.05 for certified mail charges, for a total of $669.25. (#49, p.2)

         In his motion for summary judgment, Mr. Hendley argues that he is entitled to a ruling on his constitutional claim, even though he now has access to email. In response to Mr. Hendley's motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend that Mr. Hendley failed to fully exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his equal protection claim and that, for that reason, that claim should be dismissed. (#52) Mr. Hendley has not replied to the Defendants' response, and the response time has passed. All motions are now ripe for review.

         III. ...


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.