Robinson v. Clark et al

Filing 144

ORDER adopting 140 Proposed Findings and Recommendation in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting 117 motion for summary judgment; and dismissing with prejudice Mr. Robinsons' claims against the ADC Defendants and Officer Taylor. Signed by Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker on 3/5/2025. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
WALLACE T. ROBINSON, SR.
ADC #169328
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:21-cv-00674-KGB

ADAM CLARK, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 140), recommending that the Court
grant the motion for summary judgment of defendants Chief Security Officer Adam Clark, Deputy
Warden Emmer Branch, and Warden Thomas Hurst (the “ADC Defendants”) and that the Court
dismiss plaintiff Wallace T. Robinson Sr.’s claims against Correctional Officer Myvon Taylor1
(Dkt. No. 117). Mr. Robinson has filed objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143). After
careful consideration of the Recommendation, Mr. Robinson’s objections, and a de novo review
of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved
and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 140). The Court writes
separately to address Mr. Robinson’s objections.
I.

Background

Mr. Robinson, an Arkansas Division of Corrections (“ADC”) inmate, filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 27, 2021 (Dkt. No. 1). He filed an amended
complaint on November 4, 2021 (Dkt. No. 11), alleging that he was attacked by multiple inmates

1

The Court is aware from the record that Myvon Taylor is no longer employed by the
ADC, but it will refer to him as “Officer Taylor” throughout this Order because that is how he was
named as a defendant in this matter.

at the ADC’s Tucker Unit on February 9, 2021, because of understaffing, lack of security, and
Officer Taylor’s failure to perform correctly his job (Id., at 4-5). Mr. Robinson further alleges that
Officer Clark, Deputy Warden Branch, and Warden Hurst knew about the unsafe conditions in the
Tucker Unit and failed to train adequately Officer Taylor (Id.). Mr. Robinson alleges that he
suffered significant injuries from the attack (Id., at 4, 6). The Court dismissed some of Mr.
Robinson’s claims, including his individual capacity claims against the ADC Defendants for
failure to train (Dkt. No. 46, at 2). Mr. Robinson’s remaining claims are individual capacity claims
against Officer Clark, Deputy Warden Branch, Warden Hurst, and Officer Taylor for failing to
protect him from the February 9, 2021, attack (Dkt. No. 46).
Officer Taylor filed a letter on April 18, 2022, which was docketed as his answer to Mr.
Robinson’s complaint (Dkt. No. 39). Officer Taylor denies the allegations that he did not do his
rounds on February 9, 2021, and asserts that he “did [his] rounds every hour on the hour.” (Dkt.
No. 39, at 1). Officer Taylor states that at the time of the incident, he was “across the hall checking
on the other inmates.” (Id.). After Officer Taylor filed his answer, mail sent to Officer Taylor at
the address he gave the Court has been returned undeliverable (Dkt. Nos. 41, 44, 48, 49, 53, 57,
62, 65, 66, 69, 71, 74, 79-80, 82, 84, 88, 91, 93, 98, 102-104, 106-107, 113, 116, 121, 128, 13031, 133, 136-37, 141-42).
The ADC Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 117). Mr. Robinson
filed a response to the ADC Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts (Doc. No. 126). Judge
Harris filed her Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the ADC Defendants’
motion for summary judgment and dismiss Mr. Robinson’s claims against Officer Taylor (Dkt.
No. 140). Mr. Robinson filed objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 143).

2

II.

Analysis Of Objections

Mr. Robinson’s remaining claims in this matter are personal capacity claims against the
ADC Defendants and Officer Taylor for failure to protect Mr. Robinson from the February 9, 2021,
attack. In her Recommendation, Judge Harris correctly observes that to prevail on a failure to
protect claim Mr. Robinson must show that there was a substantial risk of serious harm to him and
that defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk (Dkt. No. 140, at 10 (citing Irving v.
Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 447 (8th Cir. 2008)). In his objections, Mr. Robinson maintains that the
attack occurred because of understaffing and because Officer Taylor failed to follow policies and
procedures. Here, on the record before the Court, Mr. Robinson has not come forward with
sufficient evidence to establish that defendants were aware of, but deliberately indifferent to, the
allegedly unsafe conditions that Mr. Robinson contends existed.
In his objections, Mr. Robinson asserts that the Tucker Unit was understaffed. The ADC
Defendants acknowledged that understaffing existed at the Tucker Unit of the ADC at the time of
the incident due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the ADC had taken steps to combat staffing
shortages by approving overtime hours, sending staff to Tucker from other ADC units, using
members of the management team to assist with security until relief personnel arrived, and using
personnel to make rounds for multiple barracks on occasion (Dkt. No. 139, ¶¶ 4-7). See Pearson
v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (“Even if [actions taken to address jail overcrowding] were
unreasonable, and [jail officials] might have done various things to prevent the blow [plaintiff]
endured, ‘reasonableness is a negligence standard’ and negligence cannot give rise to an Eighth
Amendment failure-to-protect claim.”); Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 852 (8th Cir. 2018)
(determining that plaintiff’s allegations of understaffing and prison officials’ routine failure to
conduct security checks does not establish deliberate indifference where “the record is devoid of

3

evidence suggesting that any of the defendants were subjectively aware of, or deliberately
indifferent to, a substantial risk of harm to inmate safety.”).
Further, the ADC had a policy in place requiring officers to inspect visually any barracks
to which they were assigned and to write notes in activity reports with no more than 40 minutes
elapsing between entries (Id., ¶ 9). The Court understands that Mr. Robinson contends that the
policy was not being followed, but nothing on the record suggests that Mr. Robinson ever reported
this to Officer Clark, Deputy Warden Branch, or Warden Hurst before the incident about which
Mr. Robinson files suit occurred. Moreover, nothing in the record before the Court indicates that
Mr. Robinson prior to this incident occurring informed Officer Taylor or any other officer that the
camera in 3A barracks had been covered up (Dkt. No. 117-2, at 46:3-9).
Finally, as to his objections that the Tucker Unit was understaffed, Mr. Robinson has not
come forward with any evidence that the ADC Defendants or Officer Taylor were aware of any
unsafe conditions caused by understaffing that would have led to the attack that occurred on
February 9, 2021. Mr. Robinson acknowledges that he had no reason to expect to be attacked, that
he had no one on his enemy alert list at the time, and that he had never spoken to the inmates who
attacked him (Dkt. No. 117-2, at 25:6-16). Mr. Robinson never alerted Officer Clark, Deputy
Warden Branch, or Warden Hurst that he had received threats or was in fear of an attack (Dkt. No.
117-2, at 68:18-20, 69:6-9). The record before the Court is not sufficient to establish deliberate
indifference, and the Court overrules Mr. Robinson’s objections.
Mr. Robinson also objects that the Court cannot rely on the credibility of Officer Taylor’s
log2 because Officer Taylor did not record the incident of his assault in his log (Dkt. No. 143).

2

The Court believes that Mr. Robinson is referring to the Officer’s Activity Report
attached as part of Exhibit 9 to the ADC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.
117-9, at 3).
4

The Court is aware that when considering a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the
non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Here, the Court has, as it must, considered all of
the evidence in the record, including Officer Taylor’s log, in the light most favorable to Mr.
Robinson. The Court determines that there is ample evidence on the record as a whole to determine
that the ADC Defendants took steps to address staffing shortages and security at the Tucker Unit.
The Court overrules Mr. Robinson’s objection on this point.
In his objections, Mr. Robinson asserts that he should have been granted default judgment
against Officer Taylor (Dkt. No. 143). On at least three occasions, Mr. Robinson moved for default
judgment against Officer Taylor, and Judge Harris denied the motions explaining that Officer
Taylor answered the complaint in this case and that Mr. Robinson was not entitled to default
judgment against Officer Taylor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 (Dkt. Nos. 35, 40, 101,
105, 134, 135). The circumstances have not changed, and the Court overrules Mr. Robinson’s
objection to the Recommendation based on his claim that he is entitled to default judgment against
Officer Taylor.
Finally, Mr. Robinson asserts that he was not given time to complete discovery in this case
because he was moved around within the ADC and lacked access to legal material and law libraries
during the pandemic. Mr. Robinson filed this case on July 27, 2021, over four years ago (Dkt. No.
1). In May 2023, the ADC Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to participate in
discovery and to stay the discovery deadline pending a resolution (Dkt. No. 58). Judge Harris
issued Proposed Findings and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the ADC
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them without prejudice as a sanction for Mr.
Robinson’s failure to participate in discovery (Dkt. No. 77). On January 2, 2024, Mr. Robinson

5

filed a motion to extend time and notice of change of address, and the Court ultimately declined
to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendation and did not dismiss Mr. Robinson’s claims
as a sanction (Dkt. Nos. 81; 87).
On June 28, 2024, the ADC Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 117). The Court granted Mr. Robinson extensions of time until October 15, 2024, to file his
response (Dkt. Nos. 125; 132; 135). On July 30, 2024, Mr. Robinson filed a response to the
statement of facts (Dkt. No. 126). Despite having over three months to file a response to the
motion for summary judgment, Mr. Robinson’s only response to the motion for summary judgment
was his July 30, 2024, response to the statement of facts (Id.). While the Court is sympathetic to
Mr. Robinson’s claim that he has been frequently moved to various ADC facilities, this is not
atypical for ADC inmates who choose to bring pro se complaints. Further, the motion for summary
judgment in this case, which may have required that Mr. Robinson conduct legal research, was not
filed until June 2024, well after COVID-19 restrictions in ADC facilities limiting access to the law
library and legal materials were relaxed. Mr. Robinson has been given ample time to conduct
discovery and prosecute his case. The Court overrules Mr. Robinson’s objection on grounds that
he did not have adequate time to conduct discovery or access legal materials.
III.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the Recommendation, the objections, and a de novo review
of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved
and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 140). The Court grants
the ADC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 117). Mr. Robinsons’ claims
against the ADC Defendants and Officer Taylor are dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 11).

6

It is so ordered this 5th day of March, 2025.

_____________________________
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

7