United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Procedure for Filing Objections:
Recommended Disposition (âRecommendationâ) has been sent to
Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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.
objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, parties may waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
Randle, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility
(“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit
without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Docket entry #1) Because of Mr. Randle's litigation
history, he was not eligible to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) absent allegations of
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court,
however, determined that Mr. Randle should be allowed proceed
under the imminent-danger exception to the so-called
“three strikes” rule. (#37)
on allegations in his fourth amended complaint, Mr. Randle
stated deliberate-indifference claims against Defendants
Jackson, Hillard, and Harris (the “Medical
Defendants”). In addition, he stated excessive-force
claims against Defendants Freeman, Cass, Watson, Whitworth,
Jenkins, and Newburn. Finally, Mr. Randle stated
failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Holladay,
Mussadiq, Nelson, and McKanna.
Mr. Randle is proceeding under the imminent danger exception
to the “three strikes” rule, he is limited to
pursuing those claims that directly relate to the alleged
imminent danger. McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753,
755 (8th Cir. 2004) (if an “inmate is granted leave to
proceed i.f.p. under the ‘imminent danger'
exception, the i.f.p. action must be limited to imminent
danger claims”). Furthermore, his claims are limited to
those that involve a risk of continuing or
future injury and not to claims seeking “a
remedy for past misconduct.” Martin v.
Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis
in original). Accordingly, the Court previously dismissed Mr.
Randle's remaining claims. (#58)
Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on Mr.
Randle's claims against them. (#176, #177) Mr. Randle has
responded to the Defendants' motions and Defendants
Holladay, Mussadiq, Nelson, McKanna, Freeman, Newburn,
Jenkins, Whitworth, Watson, and Cass (the “County
Defendants”) have replied to Mr. Randle's response.
summary judgment, the Court rules on the case without a
trial. A party is entitled to summary judgment if-but only
if-the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about
any fact important to the outcome of the case. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920,
921 (8th Cir. 2017).
Medical Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
Undisputed Factual Evidence
January 30, 2018, nurse Melissa Grimes (not a party to this
lawsuit) conducted Mr. Randle's medical screening at
intake. (#177-1 at p.1) At that time, Mr. Randle stated that
he did not suffer from seizures and that he did not suffer
from any mental health conditions. (Id. at p.3) In
addition, Mr. Randle told Ms. Grimes that he was not taking
any medication to treat mental health conditions.
(Id. at pp.4-5) Nurse Grimes concluded that Mr.
Randle had “Stable MH Condition” and recommended
that he be housed in general population. (Id. at
February 12th, Mr. Randle was examined by Defendant Jackson
based on a “Medical Staff Request.” (Id.
at p.9) At that time, Mr. Randle notified Defendant Jackson
that he was undergoing mental health treatment for depression
and that he had a prescription for Depakote. (Id. at
p.10) Mr. Randle, however, also “denied any concerns
and reported they [sic] are coping adequately with
incarceration at this time.” (Id.)
Jackson conducted a mental health assessment of Mr. Randle
and concluded that he could stay “in unit.”
(Id. at p.12) He advised Mr. Randle “to submit
[a] request for follow up as needed.” (Id.)
March 2nd, Quelinda Tillman (not a party to this lawsuit)
assessed Mr. Randle after Mr. Randle reported that his right
shoulder had been injured during an altercation on March 1st.
(Id.) Ms. Tilman noted that Mr. Randle was to be
examined by the provider that day and noted that an x-ray
examination of Mr. Randle's shoulder should be ordered
same day, the medical provider, Kendra Roberts (not a party
to this lawsuit), examined Mr. Randle. (#177-2 at p.1) Ms.
Roberts noted “edema, deformity to right shoulder,
elbow, [and] wrist.” (Id. at p.3) She
diagnosed Mr. Randle with “acute injury to right
shoulder, elbow, wrist, [and] hand.” (Id.) Ms.
Roberts ordered an x-ray examination of Mr. Randle's
“right shoulder, right elbow, and wrist/hand.”
(Id.) She also ordered ibuprofen, as well as a sling
with an ice pack for Mr. Randle. (Id. at pp.3-4)
March 7th, nurse Kimberly Harrison (not a party to this
lawsuit) examined Mr. Randle. (#177-1 at p.13) At that time,
Mr. Randle complained that he suffered from seizures and that
he had previously been prescribed Depakote. (Id.)
Nurse Harrison noted that Mr. Randle had stated that he was
not taking any medication at intake. (Id.) At that
encounter, Nurse Harrison told Mr. Randle that his x-ray
examination results were “normal.” (Id.