Holsombach v. Kelley et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 17 the recommended disposition on the issue of exhaustion; denying 14 defendants' motion for summary judgment on this issue; rejecting 17 the recommended disposition as to its recommendation that plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief be denied; and directing the clerk to remand this case to Judge Deere for proceedings consistent with this order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/16/2015. (kdr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MARK HOLSOMBACH ADC# 134723 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:15CV00222 BSM WENDY KELLEY et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The recommended disposition (“RD”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and plaintiff Mark Holsombach’s objections thereto have been reviewed. After carefully considering these documents and reviewing the record de novo, the RD is adopted on the issue of exhaustion, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue is denied, and the RD is rejected as to its recommendation that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief be denied. Judge Deere denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which only asserted that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. She proceeded to screen plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and dismissed it based on her conclusion that plaintiff cannot show immediate threat because he is being held in administrative segregation, is not allowed to have contact with the general prison population, and is escorted by two prison officers each time he leaves his cell. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In his objection, however, plaintiff alleges that general population inmates are allowed to access administrative segregation freely. See Holsombach Objs. at 15, Doc. No. 19. He states that these inmates perform various jobs in segregation, which leaves segregation inmates exposed. See id. Plaintiff also alleges that he witnessed another administrative segregation inmate being stabbed while escorted by two prison guards. Id. In that prison officials are bound by the Eighth Amendment to take reasonable measures to guarantee inmate safety, Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 450 (8th Cir. 2008), plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an immediate threat to his safety so as to survive screening. Accordingly, in light of plaintiff’s new allegations, the RD is rejected on plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 14] is denied. 2 The clerk is directed to remand this case to Judge Deere for proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September 2015 day. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?