Wallis v. Helder et al

Filing 65

ORDER ADOPTING 58 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss and denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 28, 2012. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOHN P. WALLIS

PLAINTIFF

v.

Civil No. 11-5160

SHERIFF TIM HELDER; SERGEANT MORSE;
CORPORAL GUTHRAY; JAIL ADMINISTRATOR
RANDALL DENZER; and JOHN DOES 1 TO 3,
Shift Supervisor, Night Shift Sergeant,
and Night Shift Corporal

DEFENDANTS

O R D E R
Now on this 28th day of September, 2012, comes on for
consideration the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (document #58) and plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time
to File Objections to Report and Recommendation (document #61).
The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders
as follows:
1.
which

This is an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
plaintiff

John

Wallis

alleges

that,

while

he

was

incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC),
defendants violated his constitutional rights by
*

failing to protect him from attack by fellow inmates;

*

denying him adequate medical care.

and

The facts are more fully set out in the Report and Recommendation.
2.

Wallis filed two summary-judgment motions (documents #25

and #30), to which defendants responded, and defendants filed a

motion to dismiss (document #42), to which Wallis responded. All
three motions were addressed in the Report and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski recommended that the motions
be denied but, with respect to the issue raised in the motion to
dismiss, that Wallis be ordered to provide defendants with a
certain discovery response.
3.

On August 31, 2012, Wallis filed a motion seeking an

extension

of

time

to

file

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation. However, before the Court could rule on the
motion, Wallis filed his objections. Therefore, his motion for
extension will be denied as moot.
4.

The Court will first consider Wallis's motions for

summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
(a) With regard to his failure-to-protect claim, Wallis must
prove

that

he

was

incarcerated

under

conditions

posing

a

substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
833 (1994). He must also show that the officers were deliberately
indifferent to inmate health or safety. Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d
336, 341 (8th Cir. 2011).
(1)
the

Report

Although Wallis has filed a lengthy objection to

and

Recommendation,

most

of

the

objection

is

a

reiteration of arguments he has already made. Wallis generally

-2-

objects

to

having

representation.

He

to

proceed

further

in

this

maintains

case
that

without
the

legal

following

circumstances create an unsafe environment at WCDC:
* the booking process allows inmates to request housing
in a certain area, so that "gangs" are able to stay together;
*

the upstairs corners of the B pod are too dark, so

that certain areas are hidden from the surveillance cameras;
*

a stool that was bolted to the floor created an

obstruction that caused him to trip during an altercation; and
*

the stool was also used as an "anvil" for another

inmate to beat Wallis's head against.
(2)

Wallis

goes

on

to

state

that

the

following

circumstances demonstrate deliberate indifference:
*

the first incident with inmate Ingram was ignored by

*

it took five minutes for officers to respond to the

officers;

incident, during which time Wallis was assaulted by another
inmate; and
*

the defendants are aware of the deficiencies in the

B pod surveillance.
(3)

Wallis has provided several handwritten documents,

incident reports, and medical records related to his claims.
However, those documents do not prove that he was incarcerated
under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, nor do

-3-

they

show

that

defendants

knew

of

and

were

deliberately

indifferent to the risk. Therefore, he has failed to establish
that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to
this claim.
(b)

With regard to his denial-of-medical-care claim, Wallis

must show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976).
(1)

In his objection, Wallis states that defendants

showed deliberate indifference by approving the simpler Gilles'
surgical procedure to repair his fractured cheekbone, instead of
the more complex (and costlier) surgery to insert a titanium
cheekbone.
(2)

Wallis has offered nothing to suggest that any of

the defendants were personally responsible for, or even involved
in, the decisions regarding his medical treatment. Therefore, his
motion for summary judgment will be denied on this claim as well.
5.

With

respect

to

defendants'

motion

to

dismiss

and

Magistrate Judge Marschewski's recommendation that he be ordered
to answer certain discovery requests, Wallis makes no objection.
His answer to the question at issue is provided at the end of his
response. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (document #58) is hereby adopted in toto, and

-4-

Wallis's objections thereto are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wallis's Motion for Extension of
Time to File Objections to Report and Recommendation (document
#61) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wallis's Motions for Summary
Judgment (documents #25 and #30) are hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss
(document #42) is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-