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.

Locke v. Williams

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

August 24, 2018

TYRONE EUGENE LOCKE, ADC #127715 PLAINTIFF
v.
STEPHEN WILLIAMS, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff Tyrone Eugene Locke, an inmate now at the Delta Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), filed this lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) In his complaint, Mr. Locke alleges that, while he was housed at the North Central Unit, Defendant Gillihan failed to ensure that the barbers were trained properly. As a result, Mr. Locke alleges, he contracted an infection from unsanitary hair clippers used by inmate barbers at the ADC.[1] (#2)

         Mr. Locke has filed a second motion for summary judgment, and Defendant Gillihan has responded. (#47, #50) In addition, Defendant Gillihan has filed a motion for summary judgment, and Mr. Locke has responded. (#53, #59) Both motions are now ripe for review.

         III. Standard

         Summary judgment means that the Court rules in favor of a party without the need for a trial. A party is entitled to summary judgment only if the evidence shows that there is no real dispute about any fact that is important to the outcome of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322B23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986).

         IV. Facts

         On August 28, 2017, Mr. Locke was transferred to the North Central Unit. (#2, p.14) Within the first week of his transfer, an inmate barber cut Mr. Locke's hair. Three days later, Mr. Locke noticed bumps on the back of his head and neck. (#2, p.14) He believes that he contracted a bacterial infection from this first hair cut at the North Central Unit that caused sores on his head, face, chest, legs, buttocks, and penis. (#2, p.5)[2] According to Mr. Locke, the inmate barbers do not clean their clippers after each haircut. (#39, p.2) It is undisputed that when Mr. Locke was allegedly infected, Defendant Gillihan was an ADC employee and was responsible for supervising inmate barbers at the ADC. (#55)

         In February of 2018, Mr. Locke told Defendant Gillihan that he believed his head had become infected from unsanitary hair clippers. (#2, p.3) According to Mr. Locke, Defendant Gillihan looked at his head and said, “OMG . . . one of [the] barbers forgot to clean the clippers.” (#2, p.3) Defendant Gillihan allegedly told Mr. Locke that he would have a “long talk with all the barbers.” (#2, p.3)

         In support of his motion for summary judgment, Defendant Gillihan offers the affidavit of Chris Brandon, a Lieutenant at the North Central Unit, who is tasked with training inmates about safety and sanitation. Mr. Brandon testifies that inmate barbers receive between 50 and 72 hours of training, and only inmates who undergo training and demonstrate sufficient skills are chosen to become barbers. Every barber attends weekly safety briefings, which include instructions on properly cleaning tools and keeping their work area clean. According to Mr. Brandon, other than the allegations made by Mr. Locke and Mr. Lewis, [3] no similar incidents have been reported over the past 10 years. (#53-1)

         V. Discussion

         The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment includes a right to safe and humane conditions of confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Mr. Locke can prevail on his claim against Defendant Gillihan only if he establishes that ...


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.