Logan v. May et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 7/20/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HELENA DIVISION
RICK LOGAN
ADC #86813
V.

PLAINTIFF

NO: 2:12CV00007 HDY

LARRY MAY et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint on January 9, 2012, and is proceeding on a claim that
Defendants failed to protect him when he was assaulted and injured by inmate S. Turner at the
EARU on December 28, 2010. On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
(docket entry #66). Defendants Peter Edwards and Albert Kittrell filed a response in opposition on
July 6, 2012 (docket entry #69). On July 16, 2012, Defendants John Lau, Theron McCallum, Brenda
Minor, and Charles Stewart, filed a response in opposition (docket entry #75), as well as a statement
of facts (docket entry #76).
I. Standard of review
Summary judgment is only appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must
view the facts, and inferences to be drawn from those facts, in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party has failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case. Celotex,

1

477 U.S. at 322-23. The Eighth Circuit has held that “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th. Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
II. Analysis
Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment because Defendants refuse to
provide him with Turner’s medical records, and that they should therefore be prevented from using
any such records in their defense This, according to Plaintiff, leaves as the only evidence the
allegations in his complaint, an admission by Stewart that he did not report to the mental health staff
an earlier assault by Turner, and two affidavits from Turner admitting that Plaintiff’s claims are true.
Edwards and Kittrell assert that Plaintiff’s motion is not properly supported, and that he has
failed to prove that they breached any duty and failed to protect him from attack. Lau, McCallum,
Minor, and Stewart, also contend that Plaintiff’s motion is not properly supported, and further claim
that material facts are in dispute, including whether the attack was caused by a lack of mental health
medication for Turner, and whether their actions or inactions constituted a known substantial risk
that Turner would attack Plaintiff, or whether the attack was foreseen. Because material facts appear
to be in dispute at this time, summary judgment is not appropriate.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (docket
entry #66) is DENIED.
DATED this 20

day of July, 2012.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2