Wallis v. Helder et al
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
JOHN P. WALLIS
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
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
This is an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
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.
The facts are more fully set out in the Report and Recommendation.
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.
On August 31, 2012, Wallis filed a motion seeking an
Recommendation. However, before the Court could rule on the
motion, Wallis filed his objections. Therefore, his motion for
extension will be denied as moot.
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
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).
Although Wallis has filed a lengthy objection to
reiteration of arguments he has already made. Wallis generally
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.
circumstances demonstrate deliberate indifference:
the first incident with inmate Ingram was ignored by
it took five minutes for officers to respond to the
incident, during which time Wallis was assaulted by another
the defendants are aware of the deficiencies in the
B pod surveillance.
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
indifferent to the risk. Therefore, he has failed to establish
that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to
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
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
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.
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
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
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?