United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
following Proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent
to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. You may
file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)
specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your
objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court
within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not
objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
Michael Jackson filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on February 22, 2016, against Pulaski County
Sheriff Charles Holladay and Deputy Christopher Gipson (the
“Defendants”) in both their individual and
official capacities. Doc. No. 2. Jackson was a convicted
inmate during the time he was housed in the Pulaski County
Detention Center (“PCRDF”). Id. at 3.
Jackson alleges that on September 14, 2015, Gipson told him
to take his break in an upstairs area. Id. at 4.
Jackson informed Gipson that he had a lower level bunk
medical restriction and could not go upstairs. Id.
Jackson claims that Gipson gave him a direct order to go
upstairs. Id. Jackson fell on the stairs and was
taken to the hospital in an ambulance and diagnosed with a
concussion. Id. Jackson sues for injunctive and
monetary relief. Id. at 5.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in
support, and a statement of facts asserting that they are
entitled to summary judgment with respect to Jackson's
claims (Doc. Nos. 45-47). Jackson filed a response, a brief
in support, an affidavit, and a statement of disputed facts
(Doc. Nos. 54-57). Jackson subsequently filed two affidavits
(Doc. Nos. 63 & 64), and Defendants filed a reply (Doc.
No. 65). For the reasons described herein, the undersigned
recommends that that the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment be granted.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park
Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving
party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must
demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a
genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d
822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party's
allegations must be supported by sufficient probative
evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more
than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id.
(citations omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be
disputed or is genuinely disputed must be supported by
materials in the record such as “depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials . . .”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A
party may also show that a fact is disputed or undisputed by
“showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the
fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is genuine
if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if
its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Othman v.
City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir.
2012). Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts
that are not material will not preclude summary judgment.
Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461,
465 (8th Cir. 2010).
facts listed below are taken from those submitted by
Defendants that are supported by documents attached to their
statement of facts (Doc. No. 46) which include the Affidavit
of Robin Ballard (the “Ballard Affidavit”) and
numerous exhibits (Doc. No. 46-1). Facts disputed by Jackson
are also described.
1. Jackson was booked into the PCRDF on November 18, 2014.
Doc. No. 46-1 at 1 (Ballard Affidavit); id. at 6
(Jackson's November 18, 2014 PCRDF Book-in Sheet).
2. During Jackson's intake screening on November 18,
2014, the intake nurse noted that Jackson had lower
level/lower bunk paperwork from the Arkansas Department of
Correction. Id. at 2 (Ballard Affidavit) & 20
(November 18, 2014 Intake Screening Form).
3. If an inmate has mobility issues, medical personnel may
issue a medical communication form restricting the inmate to
lower level/lower bunk. Id. at 2 (Ballard
4. On March 15, 2015, Jackson received a lower level/lower
bunk restriction. Id. at 3 (Ballard Affidavit) &
23 (Jackson's Miscellaneous Booking Report).
5. A lower level/lower bunk restriction indicates that the
inmate should only be housed on the lower level of his
assigned unit and on the lower bunk of his cell. Id.
at 2 (Ballard Affidavit).
6. Visitation booths at the PCRDF are located on the second
floor of each unit. Id. at 3 ...