United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
Before
the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed July 25,
2019, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF
No. 67). Judge Bryant recommends granting Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 51). Judge Bryant
further recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (ECF
No. 46), Motion for Address Assistance and a Walk-Through of
ORCU (ECF No. 61), and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
62) be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 68). The Court finds this matter
ripe for consideration.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, on March 29, 2018, in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 2). Plaintiff's Complaint was screened and
served in the Eastern District. (ECF No. 8). On July 11,
2018, Plaintiff's Complaint was transferred to the
Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 14).
Plaintiff
alleges that on January 9, 2018, Defendant Gentle violated
his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights by falsifying a
behavior report and disciplinary charge in retaliation for
verbal altercation between them. (ECF No. 2, p. 5). Plaintiff
then appeared before Defendant Golden for a disciplinary
charge hearing on January 19, 2018. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Golden violated his Due Process rights by refusing
to review camera footage which showed that Defendant Gentle
lied about the altercation and by ignoring Corporal
Butler's witness statement on his behalf. He alleges
Defendant Golden found him guilty based on “no
evidence.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges his
appeals were denied by Defendants Faust, Naylor, and Kelley,
who also declined to review the camera footage and Corporal
Butler's witness statement. (Id. at 5-7).
Plaintiff
also alleges that, as a result of the disciplinary charge
conviction, he was placed in punitive segregation, where his
Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the conditions of
confinement. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was
subjected to: (1) 24-hour isolation (2) constant cell
illumination; (3) mat extraction for “obtuse
hours;” (4) loss of the ability to shower; and (5)
constant excessive noise, including banging on walls and
vents and yelling throughout the night. (Id. at 7).
Plaintiff
proceeds against all Defendants in both their official and
individual capacities. (Id. at 2). He seeks
compensatory relief, punitive relief from Defendant Gentle,
injunctive relief concerning the excessive noise and constant
illumination in the punitive isolation area, court costs and
legal fees, and expungement of his disciplinary conviction.
(Id. at 9).
Defendants
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 17, 2018.
(ECF No. 51). Plaintiff responded on January 7, 2019. (ECF
No. 59). Plaintiff then filed a separate Motion for Summary
Judgment on May 2, 2019. (ECF No. 62). On July 25, 2019,
Judge Bryant entered his Report and Recommendation,
recommending that that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment be denied, and that Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff filed
his objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 12,
2019. (ECF No. 68).
DISCUSSION
Judge
Bryant recommends denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 62) as untimely. Judge Bryant further
recommends granting Defendants summary judgment on each of
Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has made numerous
objections to Judge Bryant's findings. The Court will
first address whether Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment was timely filed. Then, the Court will address each
of Plaintiff's claims in turn.
I.
Timeliness of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment
Judge
Bryant recommends denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 62) as untimely. The dispositive motions
deadline in this case passed on December 17, 2018. Plaintiff
did not file his Motion for Summary Judgment until May 2,
2019. Plaintiff does not dispute that his motion was
untimely. However, Plaintiff states that he was denied legal
supplies and transferred four times to three different units
in an effort to prevent him from accessing the law library.
Upon
review, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant. As noted above,
the dispositive motions deadline in this case was December
17, 2018. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 51) on the deadline. Plaintiff was able to timely
respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion and did
not begin filing grievances pertaining to legal supplies and
law library access until March 7, 2019. Thus, there was
approximately a two-month window where Plaintiff
presumptively had access to the law library and legal
supplies, and could have filed an unhindered, albeit late,
summary judgment motion. Plaintiff also never moved to extend
any deadlines or attempted to notify this Court that he
needed additional time to prepare any documents. Further,
Plaintiff states in his objections that he was allowed to
visit the law library once a week.
Accordingly,
the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF ...