Palmer v. Helder et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. All claims against Sheriff Helder are dismissed with prejudice. See order for specifics. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 6, 2015. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM E. PALMER
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 5:14-CV-05180

SHERIFF TIM HELDER; NURSE RHONDA
BRADLEY; DR. HOWARD; and DR. MULLINS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Currently before the Court are the findings and recommendations (Doc. 56) of the Honorable
Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court
are Plaintiff William E. Palmer’s objections (Doc. 57) and supplement (Doc. 58). No response to
the objections was filed by Defendants. The Court has conducted a de novo review as to all specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which Plaintiff has raised objections. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c). Upon due consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law
nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations and that the
Magistrate’s report does not otherwise contain any clear error.
The document filed as Plaintiff’s original objections (Doc. 57) appears to be a renewed
motion to compel production1 of certain documents. To the extent that document, entitled “motion
for stay of summary judgment,” should be construed as a motion to compel, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff moves to compel production of certain documents requested through his requests for
production numbered 5 and 6 (Doc. 57, pp. 2-3). Defendants objected to Request 5 on the grounds
that it was overly broad, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable material.

1

A prior motion (Doc. 36) was denied (Doc. 39).
-1-

Plaintiff argues that the objection should be overruled, as he “clearly stated I wanted Defendants [sic]
prior records that may and will be used against their credibility on issues about policies, practices,
and occurances [sic] (having been sued, or in process of) . . .” (Doc. 57, p. 4). The Court agrees with
Defendants that this request is overly vague,2 and to the extent it asks for all disciplinary records or
lawsuits ever filed against Defendants, it is overly broad. It is not clear exactly what information
Plaintiff seeks through this request. As such, the motion to compel will be denied as to Request 5.
Plaintiff also states that he never received the requested records from Northwest Medical
Center (“Northwest”) pursuant to his Request 6. It appears that Defendants did produce certain
medical records and a copy of a deposition transcript in response to this request. (Doc. 57, p. 3).
The response, however, was not satisfactory to Plaintiff. The Court does not know what exactly was
produced by Defendants. However, the Court notes that a subpoena was issued to the medical
records custodian of Northwest pursuant to an order dated December 1, 2014. (Doc. 39). Service
of the subpoena was confirmed. (Doc. 41). Northwest responded (Doc. 43) that it could not provide
the requested records without more information. Although it appears the subpoena contained
sufficient information, based on Northwest’s response, the record does not reflect that the records
were ever actually received by the Court in response to the subpoena. While the Court will not direct
Defendants to produce the medical records requested by Plaintiff in his requests for production, the
Court will direct the Clerk to reissue a subpoena to Northwest.
As to Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate’s report, Plaintiff generally objects to dismissal
of his official-capacity and conditions-of-confinement claims. Plaintiff’s objections, however, do

2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A) (a request for production “must describe with reasonable
particularity each item or category of items to be inspected”).
-2-

not persuade the Court that the Magistrate’s analysis was in error on these issues. Plaintiff again
complains of actions he alleges were taken by Defendants, but does not sufficiently show that any
practice, custom, or policy was the moving force behind any of the alleged violations of his
constitutional rights. Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817-18 (8th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff also
complains that inmates were expected to clean or cover black mold without proper cleaning tools
or other precautionary measures. Any allegations in this regard amount to a de minimis imposition
not implicating constitutional concerns. See Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996)
(exposure to raw sewage for four days not sufficient to allege constitutional violation where Plaintiff
did not allege he suffered any consequences from the exposure and where Plaintiff declined to clean
up the mess).
The Magistrate’s report (Doc. 56) is therefore ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Accordingly,
for the reasons set forth in the report, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted insofar
as all claims against Sheriff Helder, all official-capacity claims, and all conditions-of-confinement
claims3 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is denied insofar as the claims against
the remaining Defendants for denial of adequate medical care remain for adjudication.
To the extent that either Document 57 or Document 58 might be construed as a motion to
compel, that/those motion(s) are DENIED.
Because Document 58, pages 4 and 15-16 contain information that should be redacted, the
Clerk is directed to remove those pages from Document 58 and refile the document without those
3

While the conditions-of-confinement claims are not recommended for dismissal in the
concluding paragraph of the Magistrate’s report, the Magistrate’s reasoning in section III(B) of
the report supports dismissal of those claims.
-3-

pages, filing pages 4 and 15-16 as a separate exhibit under seal.
The Clerk is also directed to reissue a subpoena to the medical records custodian of the
Northwest Medical Center, 609 West Maple Ave., Springdale, AR 72764.4 (See Doc. 43 for original
subpoena).
Plaintiff previously filed a motion for the Court to appoint him counsel in this matter, which
motion was denied by order entered December 1, 2014 (Doc. 39). The issues in this case have been
narrowed, and the case is ready to proceed to trial. Trial of this matter will involve legal, factual,
and procedural complexities that might weigh in favor of appointing counsel at this juncture. If
Plaintiff still desires appointed counsel, he is invited to renew his motion for appointed counsel.
This case will be set for trial on the remaining claims by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2015.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4

The subpoena should require the documents to be returned to the Fayetteville clerk’s
office by November 6, 2015. The description of the documents to be produced should be the
same as in Document 43 with the exception that Plaintiff’s social security number should be
added as an identifier.
-4-