United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O.
Hickey, Chief United States District Judge, referred this
case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF Nos. 49, 50, 51).
filed his Complaint on January 12, 2018. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated
while he was incarcerated in the Clark County Detention
Center (“CCDC”) from May 19, 2017, through
December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1 at 2). As required by the PLRA,
Plaintiff's Complaint was screened prior to service, and
several of the Defendants and claims dismissed on April 9,
2018. (ECF No. 13). Two of Plaintiff's official capacity
claims remain. Plaintiff alleges he has diabetes and high
blood pressure. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges CCDC does
not provide a diabetic diet and he suffered from blood sugar
levels as low as the “fifties or sixties” as a
result. (ECF No. 1 at 15). He alleges the meals consisted of
cereal, fresh fruit, bologna or salami sandwiches on white
bread, and a small bag of chips. A “TV dinner”
was occasionally provided. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff
states his free-world doctor told him not to eat white bread
or pork, and all the meals were white-bread sandwiches with
pork cold-cuts. He therefore traded his sandwiches for the
bags of potato chips which came with the meals and ate those
instead. (Id. at 12). He alleges that when he asked
for a diabetic snack he was given an apple. (Id. at
15). He states the jail administrator used to let his family
send him diabetic snack packages, but they told him that he
could not have another diabetic snack box from his family, so
he is stuck in a cell with nothing to eat if his blood sugar
gets too low. (Id. at 14, 17).
also alleges he was forced to sleep in a cell in which the
window glass was missing, leaving the cell was open to the
elements during cold weather. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 7).
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 19, 2018.
(ECF Nos. 49, 50, 51). On December 20, 2018, the Court
entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file his Response to
the Motion. (ECF No. 52). Defendants filed a Supplement
containing an executed affidavit from Defendant Barnes on
December 31, 2018. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff filed his Response
on January 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 54, 55).
judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record
"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). "Once a party
moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing,
the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth
specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that
a genuine issue of material fact exists.” National
Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607
(8th Cir. 1999).
non-moving party "must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They
must show there is sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict in their favor." National Bank, 165
F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "A case founded on
speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion
for summary judgment." Id. (citing, Metge
v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)).
“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one
of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt
that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion
for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
argue summary judgment in their favor is appropriate because:
(1) there was no policy, practice, or custom of CCDC that
resulted in deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's
diabetic needs; (2) the window in question was covered with
plexiglass, there was heat in the cell, and Plaintiff failed
to file any grievances concerning his conditions of
confinement. (ECF No. 50 at 5-15).
argues the facility lacks a kitchen or food preparation area
and does not have a dietician, resulting in the failure to
provide his diabetic diet. (ECF No. 55 at 1). He points to
two facility inspection reports from 2017 and 2018 and argues
that the reports prove that his complaints are “correct
and true.” (Id. at 1).
remaining claims are against Defendant in their official
capacity alone. Under Section 1983, a defendant may be sued
in either his individual capacity, or in his official
capacity, or in both. In Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d
907 (8th Cir. 1998), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
discussed the ...