Barker v. Coleman et al
ORDER adopting 68 recommendation as modified. 57 Motion for summary judgment is granted. Barker's remaining claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/18/2020. (wbb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MARK AMOS BARKER
RONNIE COLEMAN, Jail Administrator,
Crittenden County Jail; CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAMS, Officer, Crittenden County
Jail; and MANDY CHILDRESS, Nurse,
Crittenden County Jail
On de novo review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation, Doc. 68, as modified and mostly overrules Barker's
objections, Doc. 71.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The modification: as Barker notes, the man he approached and
hit was Alvin Brown-not Mario Wilson. Wilson was one of the folks
standing around who threw food trays at Barker later in the altercation.
This is an important fact; and the Court has therefore reviewed the
recommendation with particular care. The Court concludes, however,
that it does not change the outcome in this case.
First, as the Magistrate Judge notes, Barker started the fight. And
though he didn't attack Wilson, his claim still boils down to one that
guards should have protected him from Wilson joining a fight that
Barker himself started. This presents a causation problem.
More importantly, Barker can't show deliberate indifference. He
argues hard that he made a theft-of-property complaint against Wilson
earlier that morning and notified Defendants of my concern for my
safety." Doc. 71 at 3. But these allegations are too thin on particulars
to prove that Defendants were aware of a substantial risk of serious
harm to Barker.
(8th Cir. 2007).
Compare Young v. Selk, 508 F.3d 868, 873-74
Further, it's unclear whether Coleman actually
received notice about any potential threat Wilson posed to Barker,
Doc. 71 at 3, or how much time passed between that notice and the fight
later that morning.
Without those details, Barker can't show that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to any substantial risk Wilson
The Court sustains Barker's objection about identity but overrules
the rest. Motion for summary judgment, Doc. 57, granted. Barker's
remaining claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?