Johnson Barnwell v. FCI Danbury et al

Filing 55

RULING granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 3/4/14. (Glynn, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

INGRA JOHNSON-BARNWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
FCI DANBURY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:10-cv-1301(DJS)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. #43]
The pro se plaintiff, Ingra Johnson-Barnwell, filed this
action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1346(b) (2006) (“FTCA”).

She alleges that, while confined at the

Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (“FCI
Danbury”), a light fixture over her bed fell on her while she was
sleeping, causing physical injuries.

She further alleges that

the correctional maintenance staff was aware of problems with
that fixture and was negligent in maintaining the fixture. She
also claims that she did not receive proper treatment after the
accident. The defendants have filed a motion for summary
judgment.

For the reasons that follow, the defendants’ motion is

granted.
I.

Standard of Review
A motion for summary judgment may be granted only where

there are no issues of material fact in dispute and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

See Rule

56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 151 (2d
Cir. 2009).

The moving party may satisfy his burden “by

showing–that is pointing out to the district court–that there is
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2002)
(per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.

Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009).

He must present such evidence as would allow a jury to find in
his favor in order to defeat the motion for summary judgment.
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000).
Merely verifying the conclusory77 allegations of the complaint in
an affidavit, however, is insufficient to oppose a motion for
summary judgment.

Zigmund v. Foster, 106 F. Supp. 2d 352, 356

(D. Conn. 2000) (citing cases).
When reviewing the record, the court resolves all
ambiguities and draws all permissible factual inferences in favor
of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.

Loeffler

v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 274 (2d Cir. 2009).
If there is any evidence in the record on a material issue from
which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the
nonmoving party, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Security

Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d

2

77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004).

However, the existence of a mere

“scintilla” of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position is
insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

Havey v.

Homebound Mortgage, Inc., 547 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2008).
II.

Facts
Before reciting the facts which the Court finds to be

undisputed, the Court wishes to address an issue concerning the
plaintiff's filings in opposition to the defendants' motion. The
Rules of the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut contain specific requirements pertaining to papers
filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. Those
papers must include a "'Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement,' which
states in separately numbered paragraphs meeting the requirements
of Local Rule 56(a)3 and corresponding to the paragraphs
contained in the moving party's Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement
whether each of the facts asserted by the moving party is
admitted or denied." L. Civ. R. 56(a)2.
In the Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement, each denial of a fact
asserted by the moving party "must be followed by a specific
citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness competent to testify
as to the facts at trial and/or (2) evidence that would be
admissible at trial. . . . The 'specific citation' obligation of
this Local Rule requires counsel and pro se parties to cite to
specific paragraphs when citing affidavits . . . and to cite to

3

specific pages when citing to deposition or other transcripts or
to documents longer than a single page in length." L. Civ. R.
56(a)3. Failure to provide this specific citation "may result in
the Court deeming certain facts that are supported by the
evidence admitted . . . ." Id.
The Local Rules require a represented party moving for
summary judgment against a pro se party to file and serve as a
separate document a "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion
for Summary Judgment" ("Notice") in the form specified in L. Civ.
R. 56 (b). The moving party must also attach to the Notice copies
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and L. Civ. R. 56. The defendants' summary
judgment filings included a document entitled "Notice to Pro-Se
Litigant Opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment." The contents of
that Notice, however, reflected the substance of the form
required to be provided to a pro se party in connection with a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, rather than a motion
for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
The plaintiff's opposition to the defendants' summary
judgment consisted of one page of argument and a one page
attachment that appears to be a billing statement from a health
care provider in North Carolina.
Having been instructed by the Court to correct their Notice,
the defendants subsequently filed a second Notice. Although the
defendants attached copies of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and L. Civ. R.

4

56 to the Notice, the Notice itself was not in the form specified
in L. Civ. R. 56 (b). Most importantly, the Notice did not advise
the pro se plaintiff of the nature and importance of "one or more
affidavits disputing the defendant's version of the facts." L.
Civ. R. 56 (b). Thereafter, the defendants filed a third Notice
that complied with the requirements of the Local Rules.
After the defendants had filed their third Notice, the
plaintiff filed a second response to the summary judgment motion.
Her response to the motion consisted of slightly more than one
page of argument. The plaintiff's response did not in any way
comply with the requirements of L. Civ. R. 56 (a).
Because the Court was concerned about the confusion that may
have resulted from the multiple notices filed by the defendants,
the Court conducted a telephone conference with all parties on
October 23, 2013. During that conference, the Court reviewed in
detail the requirements of Local Rule 56. In particular, the
Court explained to the plaintiff the necessity of filing one or
more affidavits disputing the defendants' version of the facts,
including an explanation of what an affidavit is. The plaintiff
indicated that she understood the Court's explanations and the
Court then provided the plaintiff with a further opportunity to
supplement her opposition to the summary judgment motion.
The plaintiff filed her third response to the defendants'
summary judgment on November 18, 2013. This response included the

5

same arguments contained in the plaintiff's second response. In
addition, the plaintiff submitted fifty-five pages of documents,
all of which appear to have been previously filed by the
defendants in connection with prior motions to dismiss. The third
response, like the previous two, does not include a Local Rule
56(a)2 Statement or otherwise state whether the plaintiff admits
or denies the fourteen numbered paragraphs of the defendants'
Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. Neither does it include any
affidavit disputing the defendants' version of the facts. The
inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiff has failed to comply
with the requirements of Local Rule 56 as they pertain to papers
filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.
The Court recognizes that the plaintiff is representing
herself in this matter, and is well aware that “the submissions
of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted
to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.”

Triestman

v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d. Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

However, “pro se parties are

not excused from abiding by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Collins v. Experian Credit Reporting Service, No.
3:04CV1905 (MRK), 2006 WL 2850411, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 3, 2006);
see McNeill v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“we have
never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil
litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by

6

those who proceed without counsel”).

Because the plaintiff has

failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56 (a)2 and
(a)3, the Court will deem the defendants' factual assertions, to
the extent that they are properly supported by the evidence,
admitted. See L. Civ. R. 56(a)3 (“failure to provide specific
citations to evidence in the record as required by this Local
Rule may result in the Court deeming certain facts that are
supported by the evidence admitted in accordance with Rule
56(a)1”).
The plaintiff currently resides in Mooresville, North
Carolina.

At the time of the incident giving rise to this

action, she was incarcerated at FCI Danbury.
On August 13, 2007, a light fixture on the ceiling above the
plaintiff’s bunk unexpectedly fell.

The plaintiff was not

directly below the fixture at that time and was not injured. The
plaintiff alleges that on August 28, 2007, the fixture fell
again, striking her and causing injuries to her head and upper
body. She was subsequently sent to the facility medical unit,
examined, and given medication for her complaints of head, right
arm and right shoulder pain.
The plaintiff received medical treatment for her complaints
both at the correctional facility and an outside hospital.

She

was seen by correctional medical staff 15 time in the year
following the accident and 47 times in the following 2½ years as

7

well as by specialists.

A CAT scan and x-rays, taken after the

accident, were negative. The plaintiff claims that she still
suffers residual effects from being struck by the light fixture.
III. Discussion
The defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that
the plaintiff has failed to present evidence showing that she
suffered any physical injury as a result of the accident or that
the defendants were negligent.

The defendants also state that

the plaintiff failed to provide medical records requested in
discovery and has provided no expert report as required under
Rule 26(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.
In opposition, the plaintiff states that the defendants have
copies of her medical records from FCI Danbury and that she
provided releases to enable them to obtain her medical records
from her current physicians.

She states that she has provided

the names of her expert witnesses to the defendants and that
those witnesses are waiting for confirmation of the trial date to
plan their trips to Connecticut.
The FTCA waives sovereign immunity and permits a lawsuit to
proceed against the United States under circumstances where a
private person would be liable under state law.

In analyzing an

FTCA claim, the court applies the substantive law of the state
where the incident occurred.
F.3d 106, 110 (2d Cir. 1994).

See Castro v. United States, 34
Here, the plaintiff asserts

8

negligence claims for failure to properly maintain the light
fixture and failure to provide proper medical care.

The elements

of a negligence cause of action under Connecticut law are duty,
breach of that duty, causation and actual injury.

See Angiolillo

v. Buckmiller, 102 Conn. App. 697, 711(2007).
The defendants contend that the plaintiff has not presented
any evidence to support her claim that the defendants were
negligent or that she suffered injuries as a result of any
negligence by the defendants.

The defendants also argue that the

plaintiff received adequate medical care during the period she
remained incarcerated following the accident.

In support of this

position, they provide copies of medical records indicating that
the plaintiff was seen by medical staff numerous times following
the incident and was treated for migraine headaches and pain in
the neck and right shoulder.

Most test results were negative.

A defendant filing a motion for summary judgment is not
required to file affidavits or other admissible evidence
disproving the plaintiff’s claims.

The moving party may succeed

by showing that little or no evidence exists to support the
plaintiff’s claims.

See Ockimey v. Town of Hempstead, 425 F.

App’x 45 (2d Cir. 2011).

The nonmoving party, here the

plaintiff, must submit admissible evidence demonstrating a
genuine issue for trial.

See

F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000).

Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230
The plaintiff was apprised of this

9

requirement by the Notice to Pro Se Litigant and copies of the
applicable federal and local civil rules filed by the defendants.
In addition, because the Court was concerned that some confusion
may have resulted from a previous incorrect notice filed by the
defendants, the Court reviewed in detail the requirements of
Local Rule 56 in a telephone conference conducted with all
parties. In particular, the Court stressed the importance of
filing one or more affidavits disputing the defendants' version
of the facts, and the plaintiff indicated her understanding of
the provisions of the Local Rule.
Despite having expressed her understanding of the
requirements of Local Rule 56, the plaintiff has not filed any
admissible evidence supporting her claims.

Her assertion that

she provided medical releases to the defendants during discovery
does not excuse her from submitting appropriate medical evidence
in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

The mere fact

that she has received medical treatment does not show that any
injuries are attributable to the defendants. Nor is there any
evidence that the plaintiff received inadequate medical treatment
while incarcerated.

The plaintiff has also failed to file any

admissible evidence that would support her claim that the
defendants were negligent in connection with the maintenance of
the light fixture.

Absent any evidence establishing the

plaintiff’s claims, the Court concludes that the defendants are

10

entitled to summary judgment.
IV.

Conclusion
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. #43] is

GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the

defendants and close this case.

SO ORDERED this 4th

day of March 2014, at Hartford,

Connecticut.

/s/ DJS
Dominic J. Squatrito
United States District Judge

11