McAlphin v. Does et al
ORDER approving and adopting both 80 89 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; denying Mr. McAlphin's 74 76 motions for injunctive relief; and granting in part defendants 9; 68 motion for summary judgment, as to Mr. McAlphin's monetary claims against them in their official capacities, and denying the motion in part as to Mr. McAlphin's monetary claims against them in their individual capacities. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 03/28/2017. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:15-cv-00214-KGB-JTK
DOES, et al.
(“Recommendations”) filed by United States Magistrate Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. Nos. 80, 89).
Plaintiff James McAlphin has filed an objection to the first Recommendation, and defendants have
filed an objection to the second Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 84, 93).
At issue in the first Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80) is Mr. McAlphin’s claim in his motions
for injunctive relief alleging that co-workers of defendants Campbell and Cornes are withholding
his mail, that staff have refused to process his parole plan after he made parole in March 2016, and
that he has been issued a “bogus” disciplinary charge which resulted in his reduction in class (Dkt.
Nos. 74, 76). He also claims that he suffered a heart attack on August 16, 2016, and that medical
personnel told him they would let him die. Mr. McAlphin asks that the Court order that he be
provided medical treatment and transferred to another unit. Judge Kearney recommends a finding
that the motions for injunctive relief be denied.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. McAlphin’s objections.
determined that Mr. McAlphin provided no evidence of a threat of irreparable harm to support a
hearing under Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981).
Judge Kearney also found that Mr. McAlphin provided no evidence that defendants had interfered
with his mail, or somehow caused others to interfere with his mail, or that he faced irreparable
harm if the Court did not grant his motion for injunctive relief. Judge Kearney also noted that Mr.
McAlphin asserted no proof of retaliation by defendants and does not have a constitutional right
to parole. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 911 (1979).
Consequently, Judge Kearney recommends that this Court deny Mr. McAlphin’s motions
for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76). Mr. McAlphin’s objections, however, contend that the
Dataphase factors show that he is entitled to injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 84). This Court disagrees
with Mr. McAlphin’s assertion and finds that he has not satisfied his burden under the Eighth
Circuit-mandated Dataphase factors to show that he is entitled to any injunctive relief. 640 F.2d
at 109, 113.
Accordingly, after careful review of the first Recommendation (Dkt. No. 80), the timely
objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the first Recommendation
should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all
respects. Mr. McAlphin’s motions for injunctive relief, whether considered motions for temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction, are hereby denied (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76).
Also before the Court is the second Recommendation recommending that this Court grant
in part and deny in part the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Campbell and
Cornes (Dkt. No. 89). Defendants have filed an objection to the second Recommendation (Dkt.
Judge Kearney recommends granting in part the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants Campbell and Carnes as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in their
official capacities and denying in part the motion as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against
them in their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 89).
The Court writes separately to address defendants’ objections to the second
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 93). Defendants state that when considering qualified immunity, “the
courts generally consider two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and
(2) whether that right was so clearly established that a reasonable official would have known that
his or her actions were unlawful. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).” (Dkt. No. 93,
at 1-2 (quoting Dkt. No. 89, at 5)). Defendants claim that Judge Kearney failed to conduct an
analysis of either of those prongs and that, based on the undisputed facts, Mr. McAlphin failed to
establish either prong (Dkt. No. 93, at 2-3).
To sustain a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must prove that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 834 (1994). In other words, Mr. McAlphin must show: (1) that he suffered objectively
serious medical needs, and (2) that Sergeant Carnes actually knew of but deliberately disregarded
those needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). Sergeant Carnes must
have both been aware of Mr. McAlphin’s serious medical condition and drawn the inference that
a substantial risk of serious harm existed. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Judge Kearney found that “accepting [Mr. McAlphin’s] version of facts as true, a dispute
of material fact exists as to whether a reasonable person in the Defendants’ positions would have
left [Mr. McAlphin] unattended, without food, for the length of time at issue, and whether, after
being informed of his condition, they would have attempted to seek medical attention for [Mr.
McAlphin]. In addition, several questions remain unanswered which the Court finds necessary to
determining this case. These include whether the Defendants were under an obligation to inquire
about [Mr. McAlphin’s] medications and/or medical condition prior to transporting him, whether
their duties included monitoring [him] while in the Fayetteville courthouse cell, whether
Defendants should have arranged for [Mr. McAlphin] to receive lunch at a reasonable time, and
whether medical care for [Mr. McAlphin] was accessible and/or necessary prior to their return trip
to the East Arkansas Regional Unit.” (Dkt. No. 89, at 7).
The Court examines the second Recommendation based on the record that existed at the
time Judge Kearney reviewed the motion for summary judgment and issued the second
Recommendation. The Court will not consider supplements to the factual record tendered by
defendants at this stage of the proceedings. This Court agrees that a dispute of material fact existed
at the time the second Recommendation was issued as to Mr. McAlphin’s Eighth Amendment
claim against defendants Campbell and Carnes in their individual capacities. Accordingly, after
careful review of the second Recommendation (Dkt. No. 89), the timely objections, and a de novo
review of the record, the Court concludes that the second Recommendation should be, and hereby
is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment is granted in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in
their official capacities, and denied in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in
their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 68).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves and adopts both Recommendations in their
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 80, 89). The Court denies Mr.
McAlphin’s motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. Nos. 74, 76). The Court grants in part defendants’
motion for summary judgment, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against them in their
official capacities, and denies the motion in part, as to Mr. McAlphin’s monetary claims against
them in their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 68).
So ordered this 28th day of March, 2017.
Kristine G. Baker
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?