United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.
Procedure for Filing Objections
This
Recommended Disposition (Recommendation) has been sent to
Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may file written
objections to this Recommendation. If objections are filed,
they 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. And, if no
objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, parties may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
II.
Background
Tylor
Shane Black, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate,
filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) He alleges,
that, on February 8, 2018, he was held at the Van Buren
County Jail (Jail) so that he could attend a court
proceeding. On that date, Defendant Dodson, a jailer,
conducted an inmate count around 11:00 p.m. Mr. Black
explains that Defendant Dodson “went to slam the door
and my foot got hung under it.” (#1 at p.1) As a result
of the incident, a toe on Mr. Black's right foot was
broken. (#37-4 at p.8)
Defendant
Dodson has moved for summary judgment on Mr. Black's
claim against him. (#35) Mr. Black has responded to the
motion, and it is ripe for decision. (#42)
III.
Discussion
A.
Standard
Summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Dodson can be granted only if
evidence in the record, viewed in a light most favorable to
Mr. Black, 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, 322-23
(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 246 (1986).
B.
Deliberate Indifference - Individual Capacity[1]
According
to the incident report in the record, on the date and time of
the injury to Mr. Black's toe, Defendant Dodson was
conducting a head count at the Jail. When he and other
officers approached C-pod, they noticed several inmates
standing at the door. Defendant Dodson instructed the inmates
to move away from the door, but they refused. Mr. Black was
standing in front of the door when Defendant Dodson attempted
to shut it. Several other inmates grabbed the door to keep
officers from shutting it. According to Defendant Dodson,
“T. Black got his foot caught in the door and hurt his
toe.” (#37-5 at p.2)
Defendant
Dodson attaches Mr. Black's deposition transcript to his
motion. (#37-7) In that testimony, Mr. Black states that his
foot was caught under the door when Defendant Dodson tried to
“slam the door.” (#37-7 at p.23) At that point,
other inmates “tried to hold the door back to get [his]
foot out.” (Id.) According to Mr. Black,
however, Defendant Dodson “still kept trying to shut
the door.” (Id.) He stated that he believed
that Defendant Dodson was irritated with another inmate when
the incident occurred. (Id. at pp.56-62, 85, 90-91)
Mr. Black also testified that he “wouldn't even
[have] filed the lawsuit if dude would have apologized to
[him].” (Id. at p.73) Based on Defendant
Dodson's failure to apologize, Mr. Black concluded that
Defendant Dodson purposely slammed the door on his foot.
(Id. at pp.74, 80, 96)
“Deliberate
indifference” is evidenced when “the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety; the official must both be aware of the facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. “[N]egligence or inadvertence does
not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.”
Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir. 2017).
“In contrast to negligence, ‘deliberate
indifference requires a highly culpable state of mind
approaching actual intent.'” (Id.) (citing
Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1374 (8th Cir.
1993)). “The defendant-official's state of mind
must be measured by the official's knowledge at the time
in question, not by hindsight's perfect vision.”
(Id.) (internal citation omitted).
For
purposes of reviewing the motion, the Court will assume that
Mr. Black's version of the event is true. Even so, there
is no evidence to suggest that Defendant Dodson's conduct
was intentional or criminally reckless. Mr. Black's
subjective belief that Defendant Dodson's failure to
apologize proves that his conduct was intentional is
unfounded. Based on the evidence presented, the Court must
conclude that Defendant Dodson accidentally slammed the door
on Mr. ...