Williams v. Gordon et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety re: 48 Report and Recommendations. Further 31 Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in part and Denied in part. With respect to Officer Devane, Jim Slavens, Thomas Travis, William Wallace, Frank Atkinson and Mike Conger Motion is Granted, and with respect to Deputies Sosebee and Gordon, the Motion is Denied. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on August 8, 2011. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
THOMAS H. WILLIAMS, SR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 07-2121

C.O. GORDON; THOMAS TRAVIS; OFFICER DEVANE;
C.O. SOSEBEE; JIM SLAVENS, Head of Maintenance;
WILLIAM WALLACE, Maintenance; SHERIFF
FRANK ATKINSON; and JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
MIKE CONGER

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Now on this 8th day of August 2011, there comes on for
consideration the report and recommendation (Doc. 48) filed herein
on June 22, 2011, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United
States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Also
before the Court are Defendants’ written objections to the report
and recommendation (Doc. 49).
The Court has reviewed this case de novo and finds that the
report and recommendation of the Magistrate is proper and should be
and hereby is adopted in its entirety.

Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The Motion is granted with respect to Thomas Travis, Officer
Devane, William Wallace, Sheriff Frank Atkinson, Mike Conger, and
Jim Slavens. The Motion is denied with respect to Deputies Sosebee
and Gordon, as there are genuine issues of material fact as to
whether

these

substantial

officers

risk

of

were

harm

deliberately

the

Plaintiff

indifferent

to

the

experienced

due

to

conditions of incarceration.
The Magistrate found that Defendant Sosebee was present on
September 25 when inmate Travis attempted to attack Plaintiff and
threatened to kill him.

Defendant Gordon is alleged to have been

at the control panel for the cell doors on September 26, prior to
Travis’s attack on Plaintiff, when a red light allegedly indicated
that Travis’s cell door was not secure.

The Magistrate found that

there was no indication that Gordon attempted to secure Travis’s
unlocked cell door.

Further, Plaintiff alleged that “the guards

were told . . . about having trouble with Thomas Travis” and that
Travis was “locked down 23 hours a day.”

Doc. 43 at ¶ 32.

The Court must review the facts presented in a light most
favorable to the party opposing a motion for summary judgment and
give that party the benefit of any inferences that logically can be
drawn from those facts. Canada v. Union Elec. Co., 135 F.3d 1211,
1212-13 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844,
846 (8th Cir. 1983).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to

protect him from violence from other inmates, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment’s

strictures

prohibiting

engaging in cruel and unusual punishment.

the

government

from

To succeed in proving a

failure to protect, Plaintiff must establish that prison officials
acted with deliberate indifference to his safety.
Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592 (8th Cir. 2002).

See Riley v.

It is well established

that “[f]or [a defendant] to act with deliberate indifference, he

2

must have recklessly disregarded a known, excessive risk of serious
harm to [plaintiff’s] safety.”

Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736,

740 (8th Cir. 2003).
The facts in the case at bar, when considered in a light most
favorable to Plaintiff, establish that prison guards Sosebee and
Gordon knew or should have known about the safety risk inmate
Travis posed to all other inmates generally and to Plaintiff
specifically, due to the fact that Travis was in administrative
segregation and locked down 23 hours a day, and Travis made a death
threat against Plaintiff, who was in a protective custody pod.
Plaintiff’s allegations that Sosebee failed to report the death
threat and Gordon failed to either check on or secure Travis’s open
cell door (which was allegedly a known concern, since maintenance
workers had been making repairs to the door, see Doc. 43 at ¶ 38)
constitute

genuine

disputes

of

material

fact

which

preclude

granting summary judgment with respect to these two Defendants.
Accordingly, being well and sufficiently advised, the Court
finds that the report and recommendation of the Magistrate is
proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.

With respect to Thomas Travis, Officer

Devane, William Wallace, Sheriff Frank Atkinson, Mike Conger, and
Jim Slavens the Motion is GRANTED, and with respect to Deputies
Sosebee and Gordon, the Motion is DENIED.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge

4