United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
OPINION AND ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma
pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently
before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 27). The Parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial,
ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all
post-judgment proceedings. (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to this
authority, the Court issues this memorandum opinion and
orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
filed his Complaint on December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He
alleges his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee in the Hot Spring County
Jail (“HSCJ”). (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2017, he was told that
the jail would no longer mail letters for inmates; instead
inmates must purchase their own stamps. Plaintiff further
alleges that the facility closed their commissary, so inmates
do not have a way to purchase stamps. (ECF No. 1 at 4). He
further alleges “his people are poor they have to work,
” which the Court interprets to mean that he is
indigent. Plaintiff alleges this has prevented him from
contacting his family or his attorney and has restricted his
ability to send documents to this Court. (ECF No. 1 at 5). As
his second claim, Plaintiff alleges he is being denied fresh
air and exercise. He alleges the facility stopped taking him
outside for “fresh air exercise” or recreation on
October 1, 2017. Plaintiff alleges it is “very
stuffy” inside, and inmates are staying sick and
fighting as a result. Plaintiff does not allege that he
became ill. (ECF No. 1 at 5-6). As his third claim. Plaintiff
alleges he and other inmates are being denied sufficient
calories in their daily meals. (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff
alleges the meals are the same each day and consist of the
• Breakfast: 1 slice white bread, 4 ounces oatmeal
• Noon meal: 1 bologna sandwich, 5 potato chips, 1
cookie (1.5 inches in diameter)
• Last Chow: 1 slice white bread, 1 cookie (1.5 inches
in diameter), 3 ounces brown beans, and 3 ounces mixed
vegetables. Plaintiff alleges the vegetables were removed
from the menu on December 2, 2017.
proceeds against all Defendants in their official and
personal capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 4-6). Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, and for the issues to be
“addressed.” (ECF No. 1 at 7).
January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his
Complaint, stating he wished to clarify that he was seeking
monetary damages, and that he wished to hold the
Sheriff's Department liable for the actions of their
officers. (ECF No. 8). On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
Supplement with exhibits to support his Complaint. (ECF No.
16). These same documents were later attached to
Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Response. (ECF No. 31).
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on November 6, 2018.
(EC No. 27). On November 7, 2018, the Court entered an Order
directing Plaintiff to file a Response to the Motion, which
he did on November 29, 2018. (ECF No. 30, 31).
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) Plaintiff failed to exhaust any grievances concerning the
allegations in his Complaint prior to filing this case (ECF
No. 28 at 2); (2) Plaintiff failed to Plaintiff cannot
demonstrate that his alleged injuries resulted from a policy
or custom in place at HSCJ; (3) Defendant Cash had no
personal involvement in Plaintiff's alleged
constitutional violation; (4) Defendant are entitled to
qualified immunity as there was no constitutional violation.
(ECF No. at 29).
argues inmates were told they would not be going outside for
recreation. (ECF No. 31 at 1). He further argues they
were told there would be “no more mailing of any kind,
” the stamp machine was removed, and there was no
commissary. (Id. at 1-2). He attached a copy of an
internal document labelled “Attention Gentleman,
” which appears to be a notice to the guards concerning
envelopes, medications, and phone calls for inmates. (ECF No.
31-1 at 1). He argues inmates received “500 or less
calories a day per person” and received only bread and
beans for the last meal of the day. (ECF No. 31 at 1-2). In
his Response, Plaintiff attached a grievance dated April 5,
2018, asking Lieutenant Lingo ...