Goodman v. Hobbs et al
ORDER adopting 65 the proposed findings and partial recommended disposition; allowing Goodman to proceed to jury trial on his individual capacity claims against defendants Robinson, Dill, Jamison, arising from the use of force against him prior to his placement in the quiet cell on 8/3/2011; dismissing without prejudice Goodman's failure to intervene claim against McGehee, Holcomb, Jones, Moseley, and Posey for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and those defendants are terminate d; denying 52 defendants Hines and Austin's motion for summary judgment; granting 43 defendants Lay, Hobbs, Holcomb, Jamison, Jones, Dill, McGehee, Moseley, Posey, and Robinson's motion for summary judgment only to the extent that all of Goodman's claims for monetary damages against them in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice; and denying the 43 motion in all other respects. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/29/2013. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JONATHAN ELLIOT GOODMAN
CASE NO. 5:12CV00157 BSM/HDY
RAY HOBBS, et al.
The proposed findings and partial recommended disposition [Doc. No. 65] submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young and the objections thereto have been
reviewed. After careful consideration and a de novo review of the record, it is found that the
proposed findings and partial recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved
and adopted except with respect to the recommendation to allow plaintiff Jonathan Goodman
to proceed to a jury on his failure to intervene claim.
Goodman’s failure to intervene claim arises from his allegation that defendants Edwin
Robinson, Darren Dill, and Levi Jamison assaulted him while attempting to move him to
another cell. Goodman claims that defendants Jerry McGehee, Timothy Holcomb, Bobby
Jones, Michael Moseley, and Harriett Posey witnessed the assault but failed to intervene.
Goodman filed a grievance after the assault against Robinson, Dill, and Jamison but did not
complain about a “failure to intervene” on the part of McGehee, Holcomb, Jones, Moseley,
or Posey. In fact, McGehee Holcomb, Jones, and Moseley were not even mentioned in
Goodman’s grievance, and Posey was only mentioned for protesting the conduct of the
alleged assailants––Robinson, Dill, and Jamison.
Because Goodman did not file a grievance against McGehee, Holcomb, Jones, Posey,
or Moseley for failing to intervene or protect him, he has not exhausted his administrative
remedies with respect to that claim. Accordingly, it is dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g.,
Jones v. Hobbs, No. 12-2002 (8th Cir. Jan. 22, 2013) (per curiam) (finding that inmate failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies against two ADC employees because he did not name
either of them in his grievance papers, as required by the grievance policy of the ADC).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Goodman is allowed to proceed to jury trial only on his individual capacity
claims against defendants Robinson, Dill, and Jamison, arising from the use of force against
him prior to his placement in the quiet cell on August 3, 2011.
Goodman’s failure to intervene claim against McGehee, Holcomb, Jones,
Moseley, and Posey is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, and those defendants are terminated.
All other claims are dismissed with prejudice, and Ray Hobbs, Gaylon Lay,
Marie Austin, and Johnnie Hines are also terminated as party defendants.
The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Hines and Austin [Doc.
No. 52] is denied as moot.
The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Lay, Hobbs, Holcomb,
Jamison, Jones, Dill, McGehee, Moseley, Posey, and Robinson [Doc. No. 43] is granted only
to the extent that all of Goodman’s claims for monetary damages against them in their
official capacities are dismissed with prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Dated this 29th day of April 2013.
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?