Valdez v. Danberg et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David Pierce, Perry Phelps, Christopher Klein, Carl Danberg is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/30/13. (ntl)

l
I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBIN S. VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 11-216-LPS

V.

CARL DANBERG, PERRY PHELPS,
CHRISTOPHER KLEIN, DAVID
PIERCE, and CERTAIN UNKNOWN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
Defendants.
At Wilmington this 30th day of September, 2013:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons stated below, that Defendants' motion for
summary judgment (D.I. 39) is GRANTED.
1.

Plaintiff, Robin Valdez, a hearing-impaired individual and former inmate in the

James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Delaware, filed suit on March 11, 2011 against
Defendants Carl Danberg, Perry Phelps, Christopher Klein, and David Pierce ("Defendants").
(D.I. 1)
2.

Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on July 26, 2012.

(D.I. 39)
3.

In responding to Defendants' motion, on August 14, 2012, Plaintiff withdrew

certain of his claims, specifically: Count III, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; Count IV, alleging violation ofthe Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 794; and Count VI, alleging violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 43 at
1) Plaintiff has not presented evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find each of the

J

I

I

l
essential elements of these claims. Thus, summary judgment will be entered for Defendants on
these claims.
4.

Summary judgment will also be entered for Defendants on Plaintiffs' remaining

claims, which are all brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Count I, alleging cruel and unusual
punishment, in that Defendants failed to address Plaintiff's need "to provide TTY [i.e., text
telephone] phone calls and necessary interpreters" as a result of his hearing impairment and
failed to respond to his medical problems; Count II, alleging a failure to train and/or maintenance
of wrongful customs, practices, and policies, in connection with hearing-impaired inmates; and
Count V, alleging violation of civil rights arising from being placed in solitary confinement
without an appropriate hearing.
5.

"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."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue ofmaterial fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 586 n.IO (1986). An assertion that a fact cannot be- or, alternatively, is- genuinely
disputed must be supported either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by "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)(1)(A) & (B). Ifthe moving party
has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks

I

I

f

1
1
omitted). The Court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it
may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
6.

In order to prevail on his Section 1983 claims, Plaintiff must produce evidence

sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that each of the individual Defendants were
personally involved in the incidents of which he complains. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plaintiff has failed to adduce such evidence. Hence, Defendants should
be granted summary judgment. See generally Orsatti v. NJ State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d
Cir. 1995) (explaining that, in opposing summary judgment, party having burden of proof must
"point to concrete evidence in the record that supports each and every essential element" of its
case).
7.

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as they are "shielded from liability

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence from which it could be
concluded that the rights he contends were violated were "clearly established" at the time of the
alleged violations. Hence, again, Defendants should be granted summary judgment.
8.

In answering the complaint, on May 26, 2011, Defendants put Plaintiff on notice

that he had failed to effect proper service and, therefore, the Court lacked personal jurisdiction
over Defendants. (See D.I. 7 ~~52-53) The Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to effect proper

li
l

J
i

'

l

j

service, either prior to receiving Defendants' answer or subsequently. Hence, once again,

I
I
I

Defendants should be granted summary judgment. 1

~

Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 10) is GRANTED,
judgment is entered FOR Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff, and the Clerk of Court is directed
to CLOSE this case.

UNITEb STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I

l

I
I

1

Under the circumstances, which include Plaintiffs failure to properly serve Defendants
during the 14 months between the filing of the answer and the filing of Defendants' summary
judgment motion, as well as the Court's other reasons for granting Defendants' motion, the Court
declines Plaintiffs request to grant an extension oftime for service. (See D.I. 43 at 14-16)

j