United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. Any party may serve
and file written objections to this recommendation.
Objections should be specific and should include the factual
or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a
factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the
evidence that supports your objection. An original and one
copy of your objections must be received in the office of the
United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen
(14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations.
The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to
file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to
appeal questions of fact.
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at
the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy,
or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial
evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your
objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Ford (“Plaintiff”) was an inmate at the Varner
Supermax Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) at the time he filed this action pro
se and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 2,
11.) He alleges Defendants, ADC and Varner Supermax
officials, violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by subjecting him to excessive confinement
in punitive isolation and by denying him access to media and
his personal property during forty-eight-hour “relief
periods” in between successive thirty-day terms in
punitive isolation. (Doc. No. 11 at 4, 9-13.) Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive
relief. (Id. at 13-14.)
remaining Defendants are Wendy Kelley, James Gibson, McHan,
Cashion,  Claudia Harris, Stephens,  Brown,
James Plummer, F. Washington,  Michael Demery, Spencer,
Evans,  and Felicia Piggee. They have filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, contending they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claims. (Doc.
Nos. 126-128, 147.) Plaintiff has responded (Doc. Nos. 138,
139). Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. Nos. 140-142.) Defendants have responded. (Doc. Nos.
145, 146). This matter is now ripe for a decision. After
careful review, and for the following reasons, I find
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED
and Plaintiff's claims should be DISMISSED with
undisputed that Plaintiff spent a significant amount of time
in punitive isolation due to repeated rule violations. (Doc.
No. 128 at 4; 126-6.) According to Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, he was denied adequate forty-eight-hour relief in
between consecutive thirty-day periods in punitive isolation.
(Doc. No. 11 at 4, 9-10.) Specifically, he was not moved from
his punitive isolation cell during his forty-eight-hour
relief periods and was not afforded access to newspapers and
other media and his personal property during those times.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges he suffered “sleep
deprivation, humiliation, and mental and biological
deterioration.” (Id. at 11.) He seeks an
injunction requiring Defendants to “obey the
constitutional limitation of 30 days confinement in punitive
isolation, ” as well as compensatory and punitive
damages. (Id. at 13.)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
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 the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to
particular materials in the record, “including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including ...