Hammond v. Boulder County Sheriffs Office et al
Filing
153
ORDER granting 145 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 8/11/20.(pglov)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Daniel D. Domenico
Case No. 1:18-cv-00579-DDD-NYW
TORY CLAY HAMMOND,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID NAGLE, and
REGGIE ANDERSON,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Tory Hammond, an inmate in the Colorado Department
of Corrections, alleges cruel and unusual punishment and retaliation by
Defendants David Nagle and Reggie Andersen, corrections officers. 1 He
has, however, failed to controvert Defendants’ version of the facts, as
presented in their motion for summary judgment. Under the only version of facts available, Mr. Hammond is not entitled to relief. The motion
(Doc. 145) is therefore GRANTED.
Two claims remain in this case. In count one, Mr. Hammond
claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Deputy
Reggie Andersen recklessly drove a van in which Mr. Hammond was
being transported, causing him to be thrown into the crevice between
The caption of the case spells the deputy’s last name “Anderson.”
The court uses the spelling Deputy Andersen used in his motion for summary judgment.
1
the seat and the van and injuring his back. In count five, he alleges Deputy Andersen was removed from the transport crew because of the incident with the van, and thereafter Deputy Andersen spread a false rumor
that Mr. Hammond was a child molester. Mr. Hammond alleges that he
was threatened and harassed by other inmates as a result, but despite
informing Deputy David Nagle and other jail personnel of the harassment, he was assaulted in his cell. In addition, he alleges that a year
later Deputies Andersen and Nagle knowingly put Mr. Hammond back
in the same unit as the inmates who assaulted him previously and did
nothing to separate him from those inmates. (See Order, Doc. 88, at 1–
2 (summarizing remaining claims).)
Mr. Hammond, who proceeds pro se, has not supported either
claim with record evidence, as he must, in order to avoid summary judgment:
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including
those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support
the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Mr. Hammond has failed to abide by this rule. 2 And
After receiving two extensions of time, Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on June 10, 2020. (See Docs. 141–45.) On
June 25, Mr. Hammond moved for an additional, unspecified amount of
time to file his response. (Doc. 147.) On June 29, Magistrate Judge Wang
granted him through July 29. (Doc. 150.) No response has been filed.
2
-2-
although a pro se litigant is to be held to a less stringent standard than
a represented party, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991), the Tenth Circuit “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v.
Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Thus, the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as
the litigant’s attorney. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110 (“[W]e do not believe
it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”).
Defendants tell a different, and properly supported, story. (See
generally Mot. for Summ. J. and Exhibits, Docs. 145 and attachments.)
On January 17, 2017, Deputy Andersen and Deputy Chaslyn Foster
transported Hammond and five other inmates to the Boulder County
Jail (“Jail”) from the Boulder County Justice Center. (Mot. ¶ 1.) 3 Pursuant to Jail policy, the journey was captured on video. (Id. ¶¶ 2–4.) Mr.
Hammond, who wore a seatbelt and restraints, remained seated in an
upright position throughout the duration of the transport; he wasn’t disrupted or jostled out of place, and the van makes no sudden stops or
other sudden movements. (Id. ¶¶ 5–9.) He didn’t move from his seat except to exit the vehicle on arrival at the Jail. (Id. ¶ 10.)
Under Jail policy, Jail personnel are required to document incidents that are outside the routine operations of the Jail. So, when he
learned that Hammond had made complaints to another deputy alleging
Citations to paragraphs in the Motion for Summary Judgment
are with reference to the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. (See
Mot. at 2–6.) The court has also reviewed the materials on which the
Statement relies and finds that the statement accurately reflects the
cited materials.
3
-3-
that he had been injured during the transport, Deputy Andersen entered an Incident Report in the Jail’s electronic records management
system that “there were no irregularities in the driving conditions” and
that he “arrived to the jail without incident.” (Id. ¶¶ 11–12.) Deputy Anderson did not spread a rumor about Mr. Hammond regarding any topic,
including that Mr. Hammond was a child molester, to any other inmates. (Id. ¶ 14.) He did not ask, request, or solicit other inmates to kill
or beat Mr. Hammond. (Id. ¶ 15.)
On February 22, 2017, following recreation, an altercation occurred between Mr. Hammond and inmate Jimmie Bazor. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Immediately after, Deputy Nagle observed another inmate standing
outside Mr. Hammond’s cell. (Id. ¶ 20.) Following the altercation, Jail
personnel moved Hammond to the Medium Module, moved inmate Bazor to the Disciplinary Module, and referred Bazor for a disciplinary
hearing. (Id. ¶ 21.) Mr. Hammond was subsequently released, but he
returned to the Jail on January 15, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 26.) In January
2018, a Classifications Officer, Patrick Wascak, classified Hammond for
housing in the Max Module based on his history and in accordance with
Jail policy. Deputy Nagle was not involved in the decision to house Mr.
Hammond in the Max Module when he returned to the Jail and, by then,
Deputy Anderson had voluntarily resigned, so he wasn’t involved in the
decision either. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 27, 28.)
Mr. Hammond’s two remaining claims allege violations of the
First and Eighth Amendments against Deputy Andersen and a violation
of the Eighth Amendment against Deputy Nagle. (See Recommendation,
Doc. 49; Order, Doc. 88.) 4 Defendants move for summary judgment on
As Defendants point out, although Hammond’s fifth claim for relief does not specifically invoke the First Amendment, his allegations
that Deputy Andersen told other inmates that Hammond was a child
4
-4-
qualified immunity grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“The court shall
grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.”); Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th
Cir. 2014) (Qualified immunity is a defense that “shields public officials
from damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of
clearly established law.”); Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895, 900 (10th
Cir. 2016) (“Once an individual defendant asserts qualified immunity,
the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s
actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2)
that the right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.”).
Because Mr. Hammond has failed to respond to Defendants’ motions, much less in a manner compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), there are no legitimate factual disputes and no evidence
that, even construed in the manner most favorable to Mr. Hammond,
either defendant committed a constitutional violation. “A prison official’s deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an
inmate violates the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 828 (1994). Regarding the first claim, relating to his transport, Mr.
Hammond, who was moved without incident, never experienced “excessive risk” to his health or safety. See id. at 837. Nor did Deputy Andersen drive recklessly or perform any other action indicative of deliberate
indifference.
molester with the knowledge that those inmates would harass or extort
Mr. Hammond based on this fact, in retaliation for Mr. Hammond’s complaining about the transport, could be construed as a First Amendment
retaliation claim.
-5-
Defendants are also not liable under claim five, whether it is construed as a failure-to-protect claim in violation of the Eighth Amendment (see Recommendation, Doc. 49, at 7; Order, Doc. 88, at 5) or a retaliation claim in violation of the First Amendment (see Mot., Doc. 145,
at 12–13). Deputy Andersen, as he states by affidavit, was unaware of
Mr. Hammond’s criminal history or charges and did not spread any rumors pertaining to Hammond to other inmates, foreclosing retaliation. 5
See Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir. 2007) (reporting that a retaliation claim requires, among other elements, adverse action and causation). There are also no facts from which a reasonable
factfinder could conclude that either defendant failed to protect him. In
fact, the available facts show that officers took steps to separate Mr.
Hammond from his attackers after learning of the altercation. And neither defendant made the decision to send Mr. Hammond back to the
Max Module when he returned to the Jail.
Because Mr. Hammond has produced no evidence in support of
any of his claims, and the only record evidence demonstrates that Defendants are not liable, the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 145) is
GRANTED. The clerk’s office shall serve a copy of this order on Mr.
Hammond.
Dated: August 11, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
_______________________
Daniel D. Domenico
United States District Judge
Nor was Deputy Andersen disciplined in any way because of the
prisoner transport, which means he would not have had any motive to
retaliate against Mr. Hammond.
5
-6-
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?