Henry v. Franks et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 26 Defendants' motion for summary judgment; awarding Judgment in favor of the Defendants on Henry's individual capacity claims; and dismissing those claims with prejudice. Henry's official capacity claims will be set for a bench trial by separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 03/27/2024. (llg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
RODNEY HENRY
Reg. #33027-009
PLAINTIFF
No: 3:22-cv-00186-PSH1
v.
STEVE FRANKS, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Rodney Henry initiated this lawsuit by filing a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 21, 2022, while he was a pretrial detainee held
at the Greene County Detention facility (Doc. No. 2).2 He subsequently filed an
amended complaint (Doc. No. 8). Both complaints were served on Defendants Steve
Franks and Robert Case (the “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 9. Henry alleges his due
process rights were violated when he was assigned to punitive segregation (also
referred to as “lockdown”) with no disciplinary hearing in May and October of 2021.
See Doc. No. 8.
1
By consent of the parties, this case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. See Doc. No. 18.
2
Henry is currently incarcerated at the Lee U.S. Penitentiary. See Doc. No. 40.
The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and
a statement of facts asserting that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
the merits of Henry’s claims (Doc. Nos. 26-28).
Henry was notified of his
opportunity to file a response and a separate statement setting forth disputed facts he
believes must be decided at trial as required by Local Rule 56.1, Rules of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Henry filed a
“Disagreement of Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts” (Doc. No. 32) and
what appears to be a response to the affidavit of Sheila Robertson (Doc. No. 33).3
At the Court’s direction, the Defendants were directed to supplement the record in
this case with additional briefing regarding the constitutionality of the Greene
County Detention Center’s due process procedure. See Doc. No. 48. In response,
Defendants filed a supplement (Doc. No. 51) and an additional affidavit by Robert
Case (Doc. No. 51-1). Henry was given an opportunity to respond but has not done
so.
The Defendants’ statement of facts, and the other pleadings and exhibits in
the record, establish that the material facts are not in dispute with respect to Henry’s
claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities, and they are entitled to
3
Henry also filed a motion for summary judgment and brief in support (Doc. Nos.
30-31). Defendants filed a response to that motion (Doc. No. 39). The Court denied
Henry’s motion because he provided no evidence with his motion and did not submit a
separate statement of undisputed facts as required by Local Rule 56.1. See Doc. No. 49.
judgment as a matter of law on those claims. However, because there remain issues
of fact as to Henry’s official capacity claims, the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is denied in part, and those issues will proceed to trial.
II. Legal Standard
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is
proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 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(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir.
2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, and must instead
demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann
v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations
must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in
his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations
omitted).
An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must be
supported by materials in the record such as “depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials
. . .”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact is disputed or
undisputed by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is genuine if
the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either
party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Othman v.
City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not
genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary
judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
In Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2009), the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the requirement that facts be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party when considering a motion for summary
judgment. The Court stated, “[i]f ‘opposing parties tell two different stories,’ the
court must review the record, determine which facts are material and genuinely
disputed, and then view those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving
party—as long as those facts are not so ‘blatantly contradicted by the record . . . that
no reasonable jury could believe’ them.” Id. at 790 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
III. Complaint Allegations
In his Complaint, Henry alleged:
I Plaintiff Rodney Henry sometime in May of 2021 was placed in
punitive segregation for disciplinary infractions upon arriving in
segregation immediately my mat and blanket was taken. When the
officer read my disciplinary, I was never issued an advanced written
notice of disciplinary charges, a hearing or opportunity to be heard, nor
a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the
disciplinary action. The oral disciplinary notice failed to contain
adequate information, specifically the name of the allege victim, a
general time and general location which precluded the plaintiff from
defending himself in a meaningful manner. Because of no written
notice being issued, this denial of non-issuance of evidence caused a
chilling effect that kept me from signing the so called ‘due process
papers.’ On this particular instant, the plaintiff served 30 days in lock
down Also on 10.7.21 – 12.7.21 I was placed again in punitive
segregation for disciplinary infractions. The same procedure was
performed exactly as in the first paragraph. On this second incident I
served 60 days in lockdown.
It is a common practice and custom for Greene County Detention
Center officers and/or staff to deliberately and purposely violate
inmates constitutional rights to due process by punishing inmates for
facility rule violations without the opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence. The function of a 24 hour advance
written notice is to give the charged party a chance to marshall the facts
in his defense and clarify what the charges are, in fact. Although the
Greene County Handbook at page 3 Chapter 1 Mission (see Exhibit 1)
references the recognition and enforcement of statutory, judicial and
constitutional rights of all person in a fair and impartial manner,
detention officers fail to follow their own policies and procedures
regarding inmate disciplinary and lockdown (see: Greene County
Handbook Chapter 28, disciplinary procedures, Exhibit 2, Chapter 31,
types of lockdown, Exhibit 3) Much less the laws and rights indicated
above and cited in the Handbook. Specifically it is the normal practice
and custom for Greene County Detention officers to engage in the
following process when an inmate is initially found to have violated a
facility rule. As follows
Step 1: inmate is identified of violating a facility rule by a DO. Step 2:
inmate is ordered to pack his belongings and placed in punitive
lockdown status.
Note: A) punitive lockdown status consists of 23 hour lockdown in a
two man cell. B) removal of mattress and blanket from 6:30 a.m. and
returned at 10:30 p.m. C) one (1) hour a day, out of cell, to shower and
day room recreate, no phone calls are allowed, contrary to what’s
indicated in the handbook.
Step 3: Officers bring and read a so called “due process form” within a
24 hour period and do not provide you with a copy. The officer explains
to you what it says and encourages you to sign the waiver portion of the
form so that you can get out of lockdown sooner.
Note: An inmate is placed in punitive lockdown for “any and all”
violations, no matter if the violation is the lowest violation cited de
minimis in addition, officers explain that if you fight the violation and
request a hearing, it will take longer to get out of punitive lockdown
and you will not get out of lockdown until after the hearing. (If there is
a hearing.) Most inmates sign the waiver out of coercion.
Note: The ones who do sign the Due Process form requesting a
disciplinary hearing do not get a disciplinary hearing any way.
Note: All inmates are already being punished before any kind of due
process procedures are being afforded by being placed in punitive
lockdown status without a mattress and blanket upon arrival in
segregation.
Note: If a so called “Hearing” is conducted, it is without the presence
of the inmate and in a secretive, bias, arbitrary, and capricious manner
giving extreme weight to the charging officers statements, with no
opportunity to be heard, present evidence, present witnesses, and
without being provided with a copy of a written statement of the
evidence relied upon and reason – for the actions taken.
Step 4: Inmate is released from punitive lockdown into general
population upon completion of sanctioned time in lockdown imposed.
No copy of any “due process form” or reasons for the actions taken are
provided. . . . .
Doc. No. 2 at 4-7.4
Henry further alleged:
It is the common practice and custom for the officers to engage in such
punitive mistreatment and it is clearly obvious that the facility lacks the
proper training of officers in regards to this particular issue.
Proper training of D.O’s is vital and critical in order to safeguard
inmates constitutional rights and protects and maintains all other
Detention facility interests. It also must be noted the Disciplinary
Procedures that are outlined and described in the Greene County
Detention Center’s handbook are not constitutional because it does not
provide for written statements of notice of Disciplinary infraction, fails
to provide a hearing or an opportunity to be heard, nor a written notice
of Disciplinary actions taken. (See Handbook Ch. 28, Disciplinary
Procedures “Exhibit 2, Ch. 31 Types of lockdown “Exhibit 3) These
procedure, or lack thereof, help contribute to the “Good Ol’ Boy
system” that is the current practice and custom and any inmate at
anytime can get thrown into Segregation under punitive lockdown for
any infraction without the opportunity to a defense or opportunity to be
heard. An Impartial Adjudicator is also essential for a Constitutional
Due Process Procedure. Pre-Trial detainees cannot be subjected to any
type of punishment without being afforded Proper Due Process
Procedures and sentenced inmates should also be given those same
procedural safeguards.
Id. at 7-8.
In his amended complaint, Henry alleged:
Defendant, Robert Case
May 2021 when Plaintiff served 30 days for disciplinary infractions, at
that time Robert Case was the new jail administrator of Greene County
4
All documents are transcribed verbatim without any corrections for misspellings
or mistakes.
Detention Center. Robert Case was also responsible for all inmates at
the Greene County Detention Center, being the jail administrator of
Greene County Detention Center gives Robert Case order to safeguard
inmates constitutional rights and protects and maintaining all other
detention facility interests. Well in this case Robert Case failed to
protect my constitutional rights to due process, by not give plaintiff a
proper due process procedure. Which included plaintiff being offered a
chance to plead his case in presence of staff, no inmate at Greene
County Detention Center is given a disciplinary hearing. Robert Case
is violating Plaintiff’s rights by not giving Plaintiff a disciplinary
hearing. If a disciplinary hearing were to be given Plaintiff would’ve
been given a better chance to exercise his rights and plead and present
his case. But no hearing is conducted but it is being conducted out of
inmates presence, giving extreme weight to the charging officers
statement. Again Robert Case continues to violate Plaintiff’s rights by
not properly training his officers/staff to protect my constitutional
rights to due process and disciplinary hearing. Robert Case is
responsible and liable in his official capacity and personal capacity. The
same occurrence happened October 7th where Plaintiff served 60 days
with his constitutional rights being violated. Neither time did Plaintiff
get a written statement of the evidence relied upon and a copy of
reasons for the disciplinary action the oral disciplinary notice failed to
contain adequate information.
Doc. No. 8 at 1.
Defendant, Steve Franks.
May 2021 when Plaintiff served 30 days for disciplinary infractions at
that time Steve Franks was the sheriff of Greene County. Steve Franks
was liable and responsible of Plaintiff welfare and livelihood being a
sheriff of the County the sheriff is responsible for all inmates in that
county. Steve Franks failed to protect Plaintiff constitutional rights, by
not properly training his staff at the Greene County Detention Center.
By Steve Franks not properly training officers or staff on due process
and disciplinary hearings, inmates such as Plaintiff falls victim to the
lack of procedures. The proper exercise rights to due process and
disciplinary hearings are not met at Greene County Detention Center,
Steve Franks is responsible in his official and personal capacity. Steve
Franks involvement is liable and is clearly violating Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights to due process and the same occurrence happened
October 7th were Plaintiff served 60 days with his constitutional rights
being violated.
Id. at 2.
IV. Facts5
On or about December 11, 2019, Plaintiff, Rodney Henry, was booked into
the Greene County Detention Center (“GCDC”) on first degree murder and robbery
charges. Doc. No. 28-2, Henry’s Arrest and Booking, at 1.
May 13, 2021 Incident
On May 13, 2021, Corporal Dylan Works authored an incident report, stating:
On the day of 5/13/21 at approximately 07:10am I was in central
helping do cell checks. I heard Nurse Bailey Burns yell “dylan their
fighting” i ran towards the Nurse in north rounded the corner and saw
Ofc. Josh Young pulling inmate Rodney Henry out of North 3 pod. I
entered the pod and told the inmates to lockdown, Inmate Lyron
Johnson handed me North Keys. Myself and Ofc. Wade Caldwell
assisted Inmate Steven Halfacre to the wall. Medical requested him
come to a med cell to have his face cleaned, We escorted Halfacre to
medical without further incident. I have nothing further to report.
Doc. No. 28-4, Incident Reports, at 1, 4. Officer Young authored an incident report,
stating:
5
These facts are taken from the Defendants’ Statement of Indisputable Material
Facts (Doc. No. 28), and the documents and records attached. Henry did not specifically
dispute any of the facts asserted by the Defendants in his Disagreement of Defendant’s
Statement of Undisputed Facts (Doc. No. 32), apart from generally alleging that inmates
who do not waive their right to due process are not in fact afforded a hearing, which is
undisputed. He also argues that due process requires more than that provided by the
GCDC.
AT APPROXIMATELY AT 7:10 5/13/2021 B-DAY SHIFT I;
OFFICER YOUNG HAD STARTED CLEAN UP IN N3. UPON
ENTERING THE POD, I VERBALLY AND MOTION THE
INMATES TO GET ON THE WALL FOR CLEAN UP SO THE
TRUSTEES COULD BRING IN THEIR CLEANING SUPPLIES. AS
THE TRUSTEES GOT STARTED INMATE STEVEN HALFACRE
(CELL N3-06 NOW MOVED TO N5-05) ASKED ME THE
QUESTION HEY ARE YOU GOING TO DO A WALK THROUGH
LIKE YESTERDAY?´IN MY REPLY TO INMATE HALFACRE I
SAID DON’T KNOW YET, YES MAYBY WILL SEE. HALFACRE
THEN ASKED AGAIN WITH THE SAME QUESTION AND I
REPLIED DIFFERENTLY SAYING TO HIM WAIT A MINUTE.
HE WOULD GO ON TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION AGAIN I
THIS TIME DID NOT REPLY TO HIM INMATE LYRON
JOHNSON (CELL N3-11) RESPOND TO HIM SAYING THE
OFFICER MAN HE JUST TOLD YOU WE WILL SEE. HALFACRE
GOT AGGRESSIVE TOWARD JOHNSON YELLING AND
GETTING IN HIS FACE WITH HIS POSTURE TO FIGHT
JOHNSON INMATE RODENY HENRY (CELL N3-02) GOT OFF
THE WALL AND TRIED TO GET HALFACRE TO STEP BACK
FROM JOHNSON HALFACRE WOULD THEN STEP INTO
HENRYS FACE. THATS WHEN I STEP IN ORDERING THE
INMATES TO HEY; HEY; STOP; GET BACK AND ON THE
WALL. THE TRUSTEES THAT WERE ALREADY IN THE POD
WITNESS HALFACRE POKE HENRY CAUSING HIM TO
THROW THE FIRST PUNCH AND REPEATED PUNCHES AT
HALFACRE. AT THE FIRST PUNCH I GRAB HENRY FROM
BEHIND UNDER HIS ARMS REACHED FOR MY RADIO
CALLING ALL AVAILABLE OFFICERS TO NORTH WHILE
PULLING HIM AWAY AND, ON THE GROUND, AWAY FROM
HALFACRE. IN THE STRUGGLE OF PUT HERNY ON THE
GROUND I; OFFICER YOUNG JOSHUA WILL ADMIT TO
LOSING CUSTODY OF NORTH KEYS WHILE VISIBLY SEEING
WHERE THEY FELL, I HAD ALREADY RESTRAINED HENRY
BY MY ARMS AND DIDN’T WANT TO RISK LETTING GO OF
HIM BUT THE KEYS WERE RECOVERED AND BACK IN MY
CUSTODY. WHEN FELLOW OFFICER ARRIVED TO N3 I
RUSHED HENRY OUT OF THE POD AND ON THE WALL TO
PUT HANDCUFFS ON HIM AND ESCORTED TO S8 LOCK
DOWN (CELL S8-03) BY OTHER OFFICERS AND HALFACRE
WAS TAKEN TO MEDICAL FOR TREATMENT ON HIS LEFT
EYE AND A POSSIBLE BROKEN NOSE WHILE HENRY
SUSTAINED A BROKEN RIGHT RING FINGER. I HAVE
NOTHING FURTHER TO REPORT AT TIME
Id. at 2.
On May 13, 2021, Henry was given a due process form providing notice that
he was charged with violation of “[Rule] A7: Assault or batter anyone else, including
fighting,” which would result in a 30-day disciplinary sanction. Id. at 6. Rather than
marking the box “I choose to exercise my right to due process,” Henry marked the
box stating: “I choose to waive this right.” Id. There is an illegible signature above
the line for the inmate’s signature. Id. The same day, he was transferred from cell
N3-02 to cell S8-03. Doc. No. 28-5, Housing Logs, at 1.
On May 19, 2021, Henry submitted a grievance, stating: “cani get out the 8
days early im sorry.” Doc. No. 28-3, Requests and Grievances, at 1. On May 21,
2021, Lt. Alicia Hubble responded: “this is not a grievance.” Id. On May 26, 2021,
Plaintiff submitted a general inquiry, stating: “can i get out the home early? im
deeply sorry i been here 2 years now im not a trouble to nobody im actually a model
inmate could you so compansion on me and let me out next week.” Id. at 2. It
appears Henry received no response. Id.
On June 11, 2021, Henry was moved from cell S8-03 to cell N8-01. Doc. No.
28-5, Housing Logs, at 1. He was housed in cell N8-13 from July 24, 2021, through
October 16, 2021. Id.
October 16, 2021 Incident
On October 16, 2021, Sergeant Kelley authored an incident report, stating:
At approximately 3:30pm on 16 October 2021, I Sgt. Kelley along with
Ofc. Yeargain conducted a shakedown in N8. Within the entire pod we
found multiple altered e-cigs in the cells, 4 extra rags, 16 extra pants,
15 extra shirts, 11 extra blankets, 11 extra wash cloths and 18 extra
towels. Cell 11 we found 4 full bags of commissary belonging to
Theodis Dixson and approximately 50 extra rolls of toilet paper. I am
recommending locking the entire pod down for 24 hours. I took 2
commissary bags belonging to Theodis Dixson and placed them in
Felisha’s office since inmates are only allowed to have 2 bags on them
at one time. I have nothing further to report at this time.
Doc. No. 28-4, Incident Reports, at 7. The same day, Henry was given a due process
form providing notice that he was charged with violation of “A4: “Intimidating,
harassing, threatening, or extorting another inmate or officer,” and was to be placed
on disciplinary for 30 days. Id. at 12. On the form, he marked “I choose to exercise
my right to due process” and signed his name. Id. The record does not make clear
what Henry did to incur this charge after the shake-down in his cell pod. However,
in response to the charge, he wrote the following on an Inmate Disciplinary Due
Process Statement Form:
I Didn’t mean for that to happen I wasn’t trying to harm nobody but I
was upset that my pictures was taken from me when I first got here it
was okay for us to have them, I’ve been here almost 3 years, I never
once tried to hurt a police Im a model inmate I just lost my
cool…..Currently I’ve been locked up 4 years the feds wanna give me
the death penalty but im innocent, Im going to trial in a couple months
so I’ve been under a lot of stress, I hope you can accept my apology
and let me out sooner than 30 days, My pictures is all I have, its pictures
of my children. I always keep my cool but matters like my kids its hard
to control. Please can we make this matter go away. Im sorry and I
understand what has [illegible] Can I do 7 days to cool off and humble
[illegible] down and get out I really don’t need this matter popping up
when I got to court. lord god bless be with me at the police let us get an
understanding and peace let your will be done Amen. Come on Cody.
...
Cody, This is not me to be aggressive and wicked, you know I’ve never
been dangerous with the guards but honestly I’ve been sad, depressed
and stressed because my trial is in a few months. My charges carries
life or death. Right now it look like Im battling for my life as we speak
so this is why I’ve been tripping about my pictures I’m sorry but my
kids are my happiness and all I have and today their pictures were taken.
I could have handled this better but I didn’t, but can I have a chance to
get out sooner? Even if I don’t get the pictures back. I’ll be humble and
grateful, can you consider letting me out the hole? I could use a few
days to cool off and humble myself down so [illegible] Can 7 days be
enough?
I don’t wont this to pop up in Court. Wont look good on me.
Id. at 8-11. Henry received a 30-day sanction and was to be released from lockdown
on November 15, 2021. Id. at 12. He was moved to cell N5-11 that day. Doc. No.
28-5, Housing Logs, at 1.
On October 19, 2021, Henry submitted a grievance, stating: “felisha Rowland
look at my due process i know its something you can do about this 30 days their
tryna give me.” Doc. No. 28-3, Requests and Grievances, at 3. On October 25,
2021, Felisha Rowland responded: “I’m sorry I can not. You can put request into
Dane Barnum Or Robert Case. I have nothing to do with due processes.” Id.
October 21, 2021 Incidents
On October 21, 2021, at 12:59:00 p.m., Lt. Dane Barnum authored an incident
report, stating:
On 10/21/21 I Lt. Dane Barnum was informed by officer Morgan
Robinson that there were holes poked in the magnets in lockdown. He
informed me that he physically witnessed inmate Rodney Henry poke
a hole in his. When I reviewed camera, I witnessed Henry tamper with
his magnet and cell N5-3. Both magnets had holes punctured into them
and were brand new. I recommend 7 days for Destroying, defacing,
altering, or tampering with existing facility property, including doors,
walls, fixtures, security devices, structure, or other parts of the
Detention Center and then an additional 15 days for second offense
Destroying, defacing, altering, or tampering with existing facility
property, including doors, walls, fixtures, security devices, structure, or
other parts of the Detention Center. Henry will be charged for both
magnets. $50 for his and $50 for N5-3. I have nothing further to report
at this time.
On 10/21/21 I Lt. Dane Barnum was informed by Officer Morgan
Robinson that inmate Rodney Henry was flooding his cell. When I
arrived at N5 their was water coming from under Henrys door and
flooding the day room. When I opened Henry cell he told me that he
would keep doing with and he was ready to leave this place. I instructed
Henry to grab all of his belongings and he was escorted to booking in
order to keep him from doing this again. I have nothing further to report
at this time.
Doc. No. 28-4, Incident Reports, at 13.
On October 21, 2021, Officer Morgan Robinson offered Henry a due process
form providing notice that he was charged with violation of “[Rule] B5 – Destroying,
defacing, altering, or tampering with existing facility property, including doors,
walls, fixtures, security devices, structure, or other parts of the Detention Center
(first offense).” Id. at 14. There is a notation indicating that Henry refused the due
process form. Id. For violation of this rule, Henry was given seven additional days
to serve in lockdown. Id.
Officer Robinson offered Henry another due process form the same day,
providing notice that he was charged with violation of “[Rule B5] – Destroying,
defacing, altering, or tampering with existing facility property, including doors,
walls, fixtures, security devices, structure, or other parts of the Detention Center
(second offense).” Id. at 15. A notation indicates that Henry refused that due process
form too. Id. For this rule violation, he was given 15 additional days to serve in
lockdown. Id. He was also charged $50 for each magnet he damaged. Id. at 16-17.
Henry was moved to ISO-144 on October 21, 2021, at 5:07 p.m. Doc. No. 28-5,
Housing Logs, at 1. He was ultimately released from lockdown on December 7,
2021. Id.
In November of 2021, Henry submitted several requests and grievances
asking when he would be released from the “hole.” Doc. No. 28-3, Requests and
Grievances, at 4-8. One of those requests was addressed to defendant Case – Henry
asked if he could be released by Thanksgiving, and stated, “I promise the rest of my
time here I wont get in no more trouble im sorry and hope you can consider my
request.” Id. at 4. Case said he would look into it. Id. Henry also wrote a grievance,
stating that his due process rights were violated because he had not received
commissary and his belongings during 48-hour relief breaks and had not received a
hearing before being assigned to segregation. Id. at 5. That grievance was answered
by Dane Barnum, who inexplicably addressed incoming and outgoing mail instead
of Henry’s complaints. Id. Henry did not file any more grievances concerning his
due process rights until June 2022. Id. at 10-12.
Defendants’ Affidavits
According to his affidavit, former Sheriff Steve Franks served as the sheriff
of Greene County during the time period at issue in this lawsuit (i.e., May through
December of 2021). Doc. No. 28-8, Affidavit of Steve Franks, at ¶1. He explained
that he employed a chain of command to supervise the employees in his office, and
the detention center chain of command was headed by the jail administrator. Id. at
¶2. According to Franks, Brent Cox served as jail administrator from May 2021
through July 26, 2021, and defendant Robert Case served as jail administrator from
July 26, 2021, through January 1, 2023. Id. Franks stated that he would not normally
be involved with day-to-day operations at the detention center, such as disciplinary
actions or corresponding due process procedures. Id. at ¶7. He stated the highest
ranking official to participate in due process procedures during the relevant time
period at issue in this lawsuit was Dane Barnum. Id. Franks also stated that he did
not get involved or become aware of any problems associated with due process
procedures, such as those alleged by Henry, unless his staff could not resolve an
issue. Id. at ¶¶4-5. He also stated he had no personal involvement in Henry’s
disciplinary actions or due process procedures. Id. at ¶8. Franks further stated he
had no contact with Henry in person or by writing, and was not aware of the issues
alleged by Henry until Henry filed this lawsuit. Id. at ¶9-11.
According to his affidavit, former jail administrator Robert Case served as the
Greene County Jail Administrator from July 26, 2021, through January 1, 2023.
Doc. No. 28-9, Affidavit of Robert Case, at ¶1. He stated that the due process
procedures in place in 2021 were implemented on May 11, 2021, and provide that
an inmate who violates the GCDC rules and procedures will receive a Due Process
form. Id. at ¶4. According to Case,
The form will include the following:
a. An option for the inmate to exercise or waive his right to Due
Process.
b. List any witnesses in the matter. These witnesses have the right
to provide or refuse to provide their statement.
c. The current release date from lockdown if found guilty of
accusations.
d. The officer reporting the incident and implementing the
sanction.
e. The date of the incident.
f. The name of the inmate.
g. The class and description of violation, along with amount of
days applied for each violation.
Id. at ¶5 (citing Doc. No. 28-6, GCDC Policies and Procedures, at 10 & 17). Case
further explained that the form provides an option for the inmate to state his side of
the story by exercising his right to due process, along with listing any witnesses in
the matter. Id. at ¶6. If the inmate waives his right to due process, the disciplinary
term will take effect immediately; however, it will still be subject to review by
administrative staff. Id. at ¶7. Case also explained that if an inmate refuses to sign
a due process form, it will be treated as a waiver of due process. Doc. No. 51-1,
Supplemental Affidavit of Robert Case at ¶ 12.
Once the due process form and voluntary statements, if any, are completed
and turned in to a detention officer, these reports will be reviewed by the oncoming
shift supervisor, who will be an officer not involved in the incident. Affidavit of
Robert Case at ¶8. Following the review of the due process form, the paperwork
will be forwarded to administrative staff for a final review. Id. at ¶9.
In his
supplemental affidavit, Case further explained that the inmate would be informed of
the reasons for the disciplinary action being upheld or not upheld verbally or in
writing. Doc. No. 51-1, Supplemental Affidavit of Robert Case at ¶ 11.
Case also explained in his supplemental affidavit that GCDC did not generally
hold in-person disciplinary hearings due to safety and security reasons, unless an
inmate was illiterate or otherwise unable to provide his defense in writing. Id. at ¶¶
6-7. According to Case, in-person disciplinary hearings create additional safety and
security risks because having inmates charged with rule violations physically present
with authority figures, charging officers, and witnesses has the potential to result in
confrontation and violent outbursts, while requiring an inmate to present his defense
in writing minimizes these safety and security risks. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. He also explained
that the GCDC did not have necessary size or staffing to accommodate in-person
disciplinary hearings. Id. at ¶ 10.
To Case’s knowledge, GCDC’s due process policy was followed by all GCDC
personnel that participated in disciplinary actions and due process procedures during
his tenure as the jail administrator. Affidavit of Robert Case at ¶10. Case stated that
he did not generally participate in disciplinary actions or due process procedures,
and was not involved in Henry’s disciplinary actions on October 16, 2021, or
October 21, 2021. Id. at ¶¶11-12, 14. His name is not on any of the incident reports
or due process forms. Id. Case stated that he did not change Henry’s housing
assignment in October 2021. Id. at ¶11. He also explained that he generally
reviewed disciplinary actions only if criminal charges were being pursued. Id. at
¶15.
V. Analysis
A.
Individual Capacity Claims
The Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect
to Henry’s individual capacity claims because he cannot prove they violated his
constitutional rights.6 The Court agrees for the reasons described below.
First, Henry seeks to hold the Defendants accountable due to their supervisory
positions as sheriff and jail administrator, respectively. Those claims fail as a matter
of law. Respondeat superior is not a recognized basis for § 1983 liability. See
Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309 (8th Cir. 1997). Henry has not alleged that the
Defendants were personally involved in his disciplinary proceedings or responsible
for his assignment to segregated housing. See Doc. No. 8 at 1 & 2. Both Defendants
submitted affidavit testimony stating they had no involvement in Henry’s
disciplinaries or the corresponding due process procedures. Case was not even
working at the GCDC in May 2021. Henry has come forward with no evidence
controverting their testimony or showing that they were in any way personally
involved in the violations he alleges. And although he complains about the
constitutionality of the GCDC’s due process procedures, he does not allege that
either Defendant is responsible for creating or implementing that policy.
A
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages
“insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions] would have known.” Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To determine whether a defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity, the Court must consider two questions: (1) do the facts alleged by
plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) if so, was that
right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Wright v.
United States, 813 F.3d 689, 695 (8th Cir. 2015). Courts may exercise “their sound
discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should
be addressed first in light of the circumstances of the particular case at hand.” Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
6
defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he was personally involved in
or had direct responsibility for the constitutional violation.
See Mayorga v.
Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Liability under section 1983
requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
Second, Henry has not supported his claim that the Defendants should be held
liable because they failed to train their subordinates. Doc. No. 2 at 7-8. To assert a
constitutional violation based on a defendant’s failure to supervise and train staff, a
plaintiff must show that the supervisor
1) Received notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by
subordinates; 2) Demonstrated deliberate indifference to or tacit
authorization of the offensive acts; 3) Failed to take sufficient remedial
action; and 4) That such failure proximately caused injury to [Plaintiff].
Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1002 (8th Cir. 2010). The Court further explained,
The plaintiff must also prove that the alleged failure to train “actually
caused” the constitutional deprivation. [Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d
1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996)] (applying the same standard from official
capacity failure to train to the individual capacity allegation). Thus, it
follows that a supervisory officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a
§ 1983 failure to train action unless a reasonable supervisor would have
known that his training program (or lack thereof) was likely to result in
the specific constitutional violation at issue. See Gold v. City of Miami,
121 F.3d 1442, 1447 (11th Cir.1997) (noting that a supervisor is entitled
to qualified immunity unless “a reasonable person in the supervisor’s
position would have known that his conduct infringed the constitutional
rights of the plaintiff and his conduct was causally related to the
constitutional violation committed by his subordinate” (quotation
omitted)).
Id.
Henry has not alleged any specific facts or produced any evidence to support
a claim based on lack of training or supervision. He does not describe what training
or supervision was provided, how the training or supervision was lacking, or how
the Defendants had notice that GCDC’s procedures were inadequate and were likely
to result in a violation of constitutional rights. Henry does not allege that either
Defendant had notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates
related to the claims he asserts; he provides no evidence of any pattern of
unconstitutional activity; and he does not allege that the Defendants were aware of
any such lack of training or supervision and failed to take remedial action.
Because the Defendants did not violate Henry’s constitutional rights, they are
entitled to qualified immunity on Henry’s due process claims.
B.
Official Capacity Claims
Henry also sues the Defendants in their official capacities. Official capacity
claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental
entity.” Veach v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 2010).
Thus, a suit against the defendants in their official capacities is in essence a suit
against the County or city itself. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010);
Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1998). As county employees, the Defendants
can only be held liable in their official capacities if Henry can establish that a
constitutional violation was committed pursuant to “an official custom, policy, or
practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th
Cir. 2009).
Henry asserts that the GCDC’s disciplinary procedures are
unconstitutional under Wolff v. McDonnell, infra, because the due process form
provided does not contain adequate information to allow for a meaningful defense,
because no hearing is held before inmates are sentenced to punitive segregation, and
because he did not receive a written statement by the factfinders about the evidence
relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
1.
Due Process Protections for Pre-Trial Detainees
Due process requires that a pre-trial detainee cannot be punished prior to an
adjudication of guilt. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979); see also Martinez
v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Pretrial detainees are presumed
innocent and may not be punished.”). However, pre-trial detainees may be subjected
to certain restrictions and conditions without due process if necessary to maintain
order and security in the jail. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 538–40 (“Thus, if a particular
condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to ‘punishment.’”).
Accordingly, where a detainee is “placed in segregation not as punishment but for
managerial reasons” such as “to protect himself from other prisoners, or to protect
jail staff from his violent propensities,” no due process is required. Higgs v. Carver,
286 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir. 2002). See e.g., Hanks v. Prachar, 457 F.3d 774, 775
(8th Cir. 2006) (holding that incidents of property destruction are arguably
constitutionally valid reasons for restraining detainee for short periods, but that
longer periods of in-cell restraints would not be justified by such property
destruction); Ferguson v. Cape Giradeau Cty., 88 F.3d 647, 650 (8th Cir. 1996)
(placing a detainee in a small observation cell for a limited time due to his medical
issues and general safety concerns did not constitute punishment requiring due
process protections).
Conversely, if the conditions or restrictions imposed on an inmate are deemed
punishment, the inmate is entitled to some due process protections. These due
process requirements, set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, include written notice of the
charge; a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and the
reasons for the disciplinary action; the right of the inmate to be present, call
witnesses, and present documentary evidence; and, in limited situations, a counsel
substitute.7 418 U.S. 539, 564-70 (1974). The Court further noted that “[p]rison
7
Wolff concerned the due process rights of convicted prisoners and did not
specifically discuss pre-trial detainees. 418 U.S. 539, 542. The Supreme Court in Bell
held that the principles outlined in Wolff concerning the balance between a prison’s
institutional needs and an inmate’s constitutional rights applied equally to pretrial detainees
and convicted prisoners. 441 U.S. at 546. Courts have since looked to Wolff to determine
what process is due pre-trial detainees in disciplinary matters. See Whitfield v. Dicker, 41
F. App’x 6, 7 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished); Rupert v. Boyd, No. 3:17-CV-119-DPM-BD,
2018 WL 1778471, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2018); Neal v. Walker, No. 4:21-CV-04068,
2023 WL 2954738, at *9 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 1, 2023), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 4:21-CV-4068, 2023 WL 2496177 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 14, 2023).
disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply
of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Id.
There is no indication on this record that Henry was temporarily segregated
from other inmates to protect himself or others; rather, he was sentenced to longer
stays in punitive segregation, serving 29 days in the first instance (May 13, 2021, to
June 11, 2021) and 52 days in the second instance (October 16, 2021, to December
7, 2021). Accordingly, Henry was entitled to some due process protections before
being sentenced to punitive segregation.
2.
GCDC’s Failure to Hold In-Person Hearings
Henry alleges that the GCDC disciplinary procedure does not provide for inperson hearings. The Defendants do not dispute this, but argue instead that Wolff
does not necessarily require in-person hearings. They explained:
During the timeframe at issue within the instant lawsuit, in-person due
process hearings were not frequently held. Rather, the inmate had the
opportunity to present their defense in writing on the “Inmate
Disciplinary Due Process Statement Form,” along with the names of
any witnesses. GCDC personnel would review the inmate’s written
statement, and witnesses identified by the inmate were given the
opportunity to write a written statement as well. In-person hearings
were generally not utilized due to the additional safety and security
risks created by having charged inmates in the physical presence of
charging officers and witnesses that may have unfavorable statements.
Doc. No. 51 at 2. Additionally, defendant Case provided an affidavit stating that the
GCDC did not usually hold in-person hearings due to safety and security reasons.
Doc. No. 51-1 at ¶ 6. Specifically, he stated that both moving inmates to a hearing
and having them present with charging officers and other witnesses at an in-person
hearing created additional safety and security risks that were minimized if the inmate
simply wrote out his or her defense in writing. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. He also explained that
the GCDC did not have the capacity to hold in-person disciplinary hearings due to
the small size of the facility and the strain on staffing such hearings would cause.
Id.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that Wolff stops short of requiring actual
in-person hearings in every disciplinary proceeding. In Wolff, the Court recognized
the risks to institutional safety that disciplinary proceedings may cause, stating:
The reality is that disciplinary hearings and the imposition of
disagreeable sanctions necessarily involve confrontations between
inmates and authority and between inmates who are being disciplined
and those who would charge or furnish evidence against them.
Retaliation is much more than a theoretical possibility; and the basic
and unavoidable task of providing reasonable personal safety for guards
and inmates may be at stake, to say nothing of the impact of disciplinary
confrontations and the resulting escalation of personal antagonism on
the important aims of the correctional process.
418 U.S. at 562. In light of these concerns, the Court concluded that inmates facing
disciplinary proceedings should only be allowed to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence if permitting them to do so would not be “unduly hazardous
to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id. at 566. And finally, the Court
concluded that due process did not require confrontation and cross-examination in
disciplinary matters and that whether to allow confrontation and cross-examination
was better left to the discretion of prison officials. Id. at 568-69.
In light of Wolff’s holding that does not require confrontation and crossexamination, the Court concludes that GCDC’s disciplinary procedure is not
unconstitutional merely because it does not provide for in-person hearings.
3.
GCDC’s Due Process Form
Henry also alleges that he did not receive sufficient notice of the facts
supporting the claimed violation or a written statement by the factfinders as to the
evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.
The GCDC’s due process form identifies the assigning officer and the alleged
rule violation and proposed disciplinary sentence. See e.g., Doc. No. 28-4. It allows
the inmate to waive due process or exercise his or her right to due process. It
provides no further facts. There is no evidence in this record that the inmate is
provided with the incident report supporting the disciplinary action. Henry claims
he received no written copy of the due process form and that he did not have enough
information to prepare his defense. See Doc. No. 2 at 4, 6-7; Doc. No. 32 at 1.
In Dible v. Scholl, the Eighth Circuit described what is required in a written
notice of a disciplinary infraction. The Court stated:
The written notice must be adequate to enable the accused prisoner to
“marshal the facts and prepare a defense.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564, 94 S.
Ct. 2963; Freitas v. Auger, 837 F.2d 806, 809 (8th Cir.1988). Due
process aims “to prevent arbitrary deprivations without threatening
institutional interests or imposing undue administrative burdens.”
[Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768 (1985)]. To
prevent arbitrary deprivations, the notice should spell out “more than a
conclusory charge; an inmate must receive notice of at least some
specific facts underlying the accusation.” Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57,
70 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation omitted). If known, prison officials
should provide general information about the date, place, and nature of
the alleged misconduct. Id. at 72. Specific facts may be withheld,
however, when necessary to protect informants from intimidation and
violent reprisals. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 565–66, 94 S. Ct. 2963; see Freitas,
837 F.2d at 809.
506 F.3d 1106, 1110 (8th Cir. 2007). And more recently, this Court has held that a
“threadbare” due process form was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that a
pretrial detainee received due process. Rupert v. Boyd, No. 3:17-CV-119-DPM-BD,
2018 WL 1778471, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2018) (“‘Without support in the record,
we cannot infer that the lack of specific facts in the disciplinary notice was justified
by countervailing correctional needs.’ This record reveals no reason why Rupert
couldn't have been given more particulars about the disciplinary charge at issue.”
(quoting Dible v. Scholl, supra).
The GCDC’s due process form does not meet this standard. And with no
evidence that Henry received any other information providing the facts underlying
his disciplinary charges (such as an incident report), there remains an issue of fact
as to whether he was afforded due process with respect to the four disciplinary
actions at issue in this case. I find there is also an issue of fact as to whether Henry
could knowingly waive his due process rights without sufficient information
provided to him regarding the basis for his disciplinary charges.8 And finally, Wolff
requires “a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and
reasons for the disciplinary action.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564. This record does not
show that Henry received any such written statement. By separate order, I will
schedule a bench trial in this case to decide these remaining issues of fact.
4.
Available Relief
Finally, the Court notes that some relief requested by Henry is now moot.
Specifically, his request for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot because he is
no longer incarcerated at the GCDC. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337
(8th Cir. 1985). The only other relief he requests are nominal and punitive damages
which are recoverable in the absence of any physical injury.9 See Sisney v. Reisch,
674 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir. 2012); Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir.
2004). An award of one dollar per constitutional violation is recognized as the
appropriate amount for nominal damages. See Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d at 724
8
The Court understands that Henry may well have understood the facts underlying
each of the disciplinary sentences he challenges. However, Wolff requires written notice
of the charges, 418 U.S. at 564, and Dible v. Scholl explains that such written notice must
be “adequate to enable the accused prisoner to “marshal the facts and prepare a defense.”
506 F.3d at 1110.
Because Henry has not alleged any physical injury as a result of the violations he
asserts, he may not recover compensatory damages in any case. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)
(“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.”).
9
(and cases cited therein); Williams v. Hobbs, 662 F.3d 994, 1010 (8th Cir. 2011)
(holding that the appropriate calculation for nominal damages is one dollar per
hearing violation, not one dollar for each day spent in administrative segregation).
VI. Conclusion
The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED
in PART and DENIED in PART. Judgment is awarded in favor of the Defendants
on Henry’s individual capacity claims, and those claims are dismissed with
prejudice. Henry’s official capacity claims will be set for a bench trial by separate
order.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 2024.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?