BEST v. STATE OF INDIANA, et al.
Filing
160
ORDER - GRANTING DEFENDANTS' HURT AND PETERSON'S 146 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Filing No. 146). The constitutional claim for deliberate indiffer ence asserted against Defendants Blaine Hurt and Walter Peterson is dismissed. With no remaining claims asserted against them, Blaine Hurt and Walter Peterson are terminated as defendants in this matter. Best's claims asserted against Defendants Indiana Department of Correction, Dushan Zatecky, John Safford, Jeffery King, and Herbert Duncan remain pending for trial. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/29/2019. (NAD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LARRY BEST, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, DUSHAN ZATECKY,
JOHN SAFFORD, JEFFERY KING,
BLAINE HURT, WALTER PETERSON,
and HERBERT DUNCAN,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:16-cv-02549-TWP-MJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ HURT AND PETERSON’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by Defendants Blaine Hurt (“Hurt”) and Walter Peterson
(“Peterson”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (Filing No. 146). Plaintiff Larry Best, Jr. (“Best”)
initiated this lawsuit against Hurt and Peterson as well as other prison officials and medical staff
for violating his Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to protect him and
having a deliberate indifference toward his health and safety. Hurt and Peterson assert that the
evidence shows they lacked sufficient knowledge of threats to Best’s safety to support a
constitutional claim for deliberate indifference. For the following reasons, the Court grants their
Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56, the facts are presented in the light most favorable to Best as the non-moving
party. See Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The factual background is set forth in detail in a previous Order on a
motion for summary judgment in this matter (see Filing No. 107 at 2–3). The facts below are
relevant to the Motion for Summary Judgment currently before the Court.
During the time period relevant to the claims at issue in this action (Filing No. 97-2 at 1)
Best was an inmate and both Hurt and Peterson were correctional officers at the Pendleton
Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”) located in Pendleton, Indiana. In either 2010 or 2012, Best
was attacked in “O Dorm” when he was chased by an inmate with a knife, but he evaded the
assault. Sometime in 2011, Best was “jumped” in “D Building” by another inmate and sustained
minor injuries. He informed Peterson in 2012 or 2013 about being jumped in D Building (Filing
No. 147-1 at 19–22).
Best was moved from the general prison population into restrictive housing and held in
administrative segregation from December 2011 until July 24, 2015, because of acts of violence
and threats of violence against him by fellow prison inmates (Filing No. 95-13 at 8; Filing No. 972 at 1). He faced violence and threats of violence because members of the Aryan Brotherhood
prison gang tried to recruit him beginning in 2008 or 2009, but he refused to join their gang (Filing
No. 147-1 at 11–13). Best told prison officials—Counselor Ballinger (“Ballinger”), correction
officers John Safford (“Safford”), and Peterson—that many members of the Aryan Brotherhood
prison gang had tried to recruit him into their gang, he refused, and threats were made. Id. at 12–
13. Prison officials Herbert Duncan, Safford, and Ballinger knew that Best was subjected to a
large number of threats of violence and acts of violence (Filing No. 95-13 at 12–14; Filing No. 9511 at 6–12). However, no investigation was conducted concerning the continued threats against
Best while he was in administrative segregation (Filing No. 149-22 at 3–4; Filing No. 95-13 at 6).
2
While in administrative segregation, Best’s life was threatened many times by a fellow
inmate in the presence of Safford and Ballinger (Filing No. 147-1 at 9–11, 14, 64–65). On January
5, 2015, Best was assaulted by an inmate who threw hot liquid with glass shards on him while he
was in his cell (Filing No. 97-2 at 1; Filing No. 149-9). During one of his periodic 90-day review
meetings, Best told Ballinger that he did not want to be released into the general population
because “[he] didn’t feel [he] was ready because no investigation had been done as to the threats
or who all was doing it or what should be done.” (Filing No. 147-1 at 15.) Best was more
comfortable being transferred to a different facility than being placed back in the general
population. Best shared these same thoughts with Safford. Id. at 15–16.
On July 6, 2015, Best had a 90-day review meeting with his case manager Jeffery King
(“King”). During this meeting, King informed Best that he was being transferred out of restrictive
housing and into the general population. Best did not request to return to general population and
instead told King that he wanted to stay in restrictive housing (Filing No. 147-1 at 30–32; Filing
No. 149-11).
King explained that he would have to talk with Safford about the planned
reassignment. Safford approved the reassignment to general population (Filing No. 147-1 at 33;
Filing No. 149-3 at 1). Despite the violence and threats of violence against Best, over his objection,
Best was moved from restrictive housing into the general prison population on July 24, 2015
(Filing No. 147-1 at 15–16; Filing No. 97-2 at 1).
On August 7, 2015, only two weeks after being moved back to the general prison
population, Best was attacked by other inmates. His attackers placed rocks inside socks and then
beat Best with them. Best had been at the medical infirmary sometime around 5:30 p.m. for
approximately twenty to thirty minutes to pick up a prescription. A prison officer was present in
the infirmary, and once the inmates were finished picking up their medications, the officer called
3
for the inmates to be released from the infirmary. The inmates were released to begin their walk
back to the cellhouse. Best’s attack occurred while he was leaving the infirmary, which was
located in an area that was a “blind spot” for prison officials and was known to be a dangerous
area. The area was known for inmate-on-inmate assaults because several attacks had occurred
there, including on July 28, 2015. On August 7, 2015, only two weeks after being moved back to
the general prison population, Best was attacked by other inmates. His attackers used large rocks
(which prison officials had set in front of prison cell houses), placing the rocks inside socks and
then beating Best with them. Best sustained severe lacerations and bruises to his head, face, back,
shoulders, arms, and right hand and wrist during the attack. He was bleeding profusely and sought
medical treatment for his injuries. Immediately after the attack, Best was transferred back to
restricted housing. During the weeks and months following the attack, Best suffered constant,
severe headaches, dizziness, and blurred vision (Filing No. 97-2 at 2, 6; Filing No. 95-4; Filing
No. 95-2; Filing No. 95-1; Filing No. 149-23 at 3; Filing No. 147-1 at 50–52).
On the day Best was attacked, Hurt, a correctional sergeant, was responsible for monitoring
the movement of inmates from the infirmary to the cellhouse. Unfortunately, Hurt was out of
position to have a line-of-sight of the inmates as they exited the infirmary. Hurt did not see Best
get attacked, and he did not know there was an attack until he was radioed by the officer in the
infirmary (Filing No. 147-2 at 6, 13–14, 16–22). Best did not see Hurt before the attack. Hurt was
not visible to Best when the inmates were released from the infirmary to begin their movement
across the yard to the cellhouse (Filing No. 147-1 at 57, 60–61). Best never told Hurt that he was
being threatened by members of the Aryan Brotherhood, and Hurt did not know that Best was
being threatened. Best never told Hurt he was concerned about his safety as to any other inmates,
and Hurt never observed anything that caused concern about Best’s safety while housed in the
4
same cellhouse with any other inmate (Filing No. 147-2 at 9–10, 31). Weeks after the attack, Hurt
escorted Best to the infirmary, and they talked about the attack. When Best complained about the
lack of help from Hurt, Hurt responded that “he had a lot going on and was busy.” (Filing No.
147-6 at 3.)
On September 26, 2016, Best filed this lawsuit, asserting claims against the State of
Indiana, the Indiana Department of Correction, prison officials, and medical staff for failing to
protect him and having a deliberate indifference toward his health and safety (Filing No. 1). On
March 4, 2019, Best filed his Amended Complaint, asserting claims against the Indiana
Department of Correction and the prison officials for failure to protect and deliberate indifference
(Filing No. 158). Defendants Hurt and Peterson filed their Motion for Summary Judgment,
arguing that the evidence shows they lacked sufficient knowledge of threats to Best’s safety to
support a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference and failure to protect.
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in
order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary
judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Hemsworth v.
Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 489–90 (7th Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the court reviews “the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Zerante, 555 F.3d at 584 (citation omitted).
“However, inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture will not defeat a
5
summary judgment motion.” Dorsey v. Morgan Stanley, 507 F.3d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2007)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[a] party who bears the burden of proof on
a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific
factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial.” Hemsworth,
476 F.3d at 490 (citation omitted). “The opposing party cannot meet this burden with conclusory
statements or speculation but only with appropriate citations to relevant admissible evidence.”
Sink v. Knox County Hosp., 900 F. Supp. 1065, 1072 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (citations omitted).
“In much the same way that a court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence
to defeat a motion for summary judgment, nor is it permitted to conduct a paper trial on the merits
of [the] claim.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). “[N]either the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties
nor the existence of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is sufficient to defeat a motion
for summary judgment.” Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Grp., Inc., 129 F.3d 391, 395 (7th Cir.
1997) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
“[P]rison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other
prisoners. It is not, however, every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another that
translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety.”
Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and punctuation omitted).
To establish an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that he
suffered an objectively “sufficiently serious” injury, and (2) that he was “incarcerated under
conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm” to which the prison official acted with
“deliberate indifference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A prison official may
6
be liable “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that
risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. Eighth Amendment liability
cannot attach “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
To prove deliberate indifference, [a plaintiff] need[s] to show that the
defendants knew of a substantial risk of serious injury to him and failed to protect
him from that danger. But as the court noted, a general risk of violence in a
maximum security unit does not by itself establish knowledge of a substantial risk
of harm.
Shields v. Dart, 664 F.3d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
The Supreme Court has “distinguished deliberate indifference . . . from negligence . . . ,
holding that . . . Eighth Amendment liability requires more than ordinary lack of due care for the
prisoner’s interests or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (internal citations and punctuation
omitted). “[C]onduct that simply amounts to mere negligence or inadvertence is insufficient to
justify the imposition of liability.” Pinkston, 440 F.3d at 889 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
A.
Deliberate Indifference Claim Against Hurt
The Defendants assert that there is no evidence to support a deliberate indifference/failure
to protect claim against Hurt, and thus, summary judgment is warranted. They argue the evidence
shows Hurt had no actual knowledge of any impending harm to Best. Prior to the attack, Best had
never informed Hurt that he was concerned for his own safety or that he had been threatened with
violence by members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Best has no evidence to show that Hurt both
knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Best’s health or safety. Therefore, they assert, there
are no facts to support a constitutional claim of deliberate indifference.
7
The Defendants argue that Best must show Hurt had knowledge of more than a general risk
of violence in the prison; he had to know of a specific or particular risk to Best, and the evidence
does not support such a knowledge. There is no evidence that Hurt was aware of facts from which
he could draw an inference of substantial harm to Best, and there is no evidence that Hurt actually
drew that inference. Hurt failed to see the attack when it happened, and “at worst, his actions were
negligent in failing to see that Best was being assaulted, which is not sufficient to establish
deliberate indifference.” (Filing No. 147 at 11–12) (emphasis in original).
In response, Best argues that Hurt is liable because he left Best exposed to a substantial
risk of serious harm, and Best was in fact assaulted. Best argues,
Hurt was aware that there was a substantial risk that Best was subject to assault
because Best is now in the general prison population after having been released
from long term protective custody. Hurt was not just surprised but shocked that
Best was returned to the general prison population. Hurt expected that Mr. Best
would be assaulted by an inmate on his return to general population because of the
extended residence in restricted housing.
(Filing No. 149 at 11) (emphasis in original). Best asserts that Hurt was the only officer monitoring
inmates coming back from the infirmary, he authorized their release from the infirmary, and he
could not see the inmates coming from the infirmary to ensure their safety. Best argues that
“Peterson and Hurt were aware that Mr. Best had been subject to a ‘large number’ of inmate
assaults prior to the incident that gives rise to the present complaint. [Duncan 97:11-18; 98:2199:2, Best Dep. 21: 6-21].” (Filing No. 149 at 4.) Because he knew of the substantial risk that Best
would be assaulted, Hurt ignored and was deliberately indifferent to that risk when he did not
adequately monitor the medical line.
The evidence which Best cites for his assertion of liability indicates that Duncan, Safford,
and Ballinger were aware of the assaults. The designated evidence does not support his allegation
that Hurt was aware he had been subject to a large number of inmate assaults.
8
Best relies on Hurt’s deposition testimony to assert that Hurt was shocked that Best was
returned to the general prison population and that Hurt expected Best to be assaulted by an inmate.
However, the evidence does not support the assertion that Hurt expected Best to be assaulted.
During his deposition, Hurt testified that the assault did not surprise him because he knew that
Best “had been on lockup approximately maybe seven, eight years since I’ve known him. And I
know he was [protective custody], so usually -- so protective custody inmates usually don’t go
back to general population.” (Filing No. 149-19 at 11.) This statement does not show that Hurt
expected Best to be attacked, as Best asserts.
Best’s claim against Hurt centers on his legitimate complaint that Hurt was out of position
to have a line-of-sight of the inmates or that he had left the area when he authorized the release of
the inmates from the infirmary and when they exited the infirmary. Hurt admitted that he “had a
lot going on and was busy” when he authorized the inmates to leave the infirmary and when Best
was attacked (Filing No. 147-6 at 3). Hurt also knew of the general risk of violence at the prison
and that protective custody inmates usually do not go back into general population. But the
evidence indicates that Hurt did not know of the prior attacks and threats against Best. Best never
told Hurt he was concerned about his safety or that he had been threatened. Hurt did not know that
Best was being threatened. Hurt never observed anything that caused concern about Best’s safety
while housed in the same cellhouse with any other inmate. The evidence clearly supports a claim
of negligence on the part of Hurt for not maintaining visual contact with the inmates as they left
the infirmary, but the evidence fails to support a deliberate indifference claim. Hurt did not have
the requisite understanding of the risk of serious harm to Best and then consciously disregard that
risk to support Best’s constitutional claim.
9
“Eighth Amendment liability requires more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s
interests or safety,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, and “conduct that simply amounts to mere negligence
or inadvertence is insufficient to justify the imposition of liability.” Pinkston, 440 F.3d at 889.
Because the evidence indicates that Hurt was negligent, but not deliberately indifferent, in his
duties as the yard monitor when Best was attacked, summary judgment in favor of Hurt is
appropriate as to Best’s constitutional claim against him.
B.
Deliberate Indifference Claim Against Peterson
In his response brief, Best explains the basis for his deliberate indifference claim against
Peterson.
The basis for complaint against Peterson is that from September 2011 to
July 2015 this officer was aware of the threats to Mr. Best and did not investigate
no[r] do anything to protect Mr. Best. Peterson knew Mr. Best was the subject of a
large number of inmate assaults prior to the decision to release him to the general
prison population in July 2015. On [sic] December 2013 Peterson moved Mr. Best
due to threats and signed for a bed change as Best was put on “hold pending
investigation” yet there was never an investigation. Peterson witnessed Deb Sipe
brazenly threaten to kill Mr. Best over thirty times in September 2014 even though
he and two other corrections officers were present. Peterson took no action to
protect Best. Caseworker King states he sent an email to Peterson (and others)
asking if anyone had thoughts on whether Best (among others) should remain or
stay in administrative restricted house (ARSH). Peterson reviewed Mr. Best[’s]
case notes when he received the email from King. Upon review [of] the case notes
Peterson knew Mr. Best was assaulted on January 5, 2015. Peterson said that an
inmate with hot liquid thrown in his cell should be placed in protective custody.
Peterson knew Mr. Best was subject to serious threats on his life but took no action
to prevent or even voice a concern for Mr. Best’s return to general population.
Peterson did not respond to King’s email even though his opinion was that Mr. Best
should not be released to general population.
Peterson failed to investigate any of the numerous threats to Mr. Best over
the 3 years he was in restricted housing. Peterson turned a blind eye to the health
and safety of Mr. Best. Peterson exposed Mr. Best to danger, leaving him
unprotected when he had the ability to act. Instead he ignored the danger to Mr.
Best effectively condoning the attack by allowing it to happen. Langston v. Peters,
100 F.3d 1235, 1237 (7th Cir.1996).
(Filing No. 149 at 14–15.)
10
The Defendants argue that the evidence does not support a deliberate indifference claim
against Peterson because any knowledge that Peterson had about threats to Best was stale when
the attack occurred in August 2015, Peterson was not aware of the threats presented by Best’s
actual attacker, and Peterson did not authorize Best’s transfer back to the general prison
population. They assert that Peterson did not know of a specific threat to Best and that Peterson
did not disregard a threat and transfer him to general population in July 2015.
The evidence designated by the parties indicates that Best was “jumped” in “D Building”
by another inmate and sustained minor injuries in 2011, and he informed Peterson about this
incident in 2012 or 2013 (Filing No. 147-1 at 19–22). Best told prison officials, including Peterson,
that many members of the Aryan Brotherhood had tried to recruit him into their gang. Best was
moved from the general prison population into restrictive housing in December 2011. While in
restrictive housing, on December 19, 2013, Best had a bed reassignment, and the “reason for
move” was “HPI – PETERSON,” which was authorized by “DICKSON.” (Filing No. 149-3 at 2.)
Based on these facts, Best argued,
On December 19, 2013 Peterson moved Mr. Best from one restricted housing unit
to another because of threats on his life. Peterson placed Mr. Best on hold pending
investigation but never conducted any investigation. Peterson never performed any
investigation into the threats to Mr. Best[’s] life before agreeing to release him from
restricted housing to general population. [Best Affidavit ¶¶ 7,8; Duncan Dep.
64:10-13; Safford Dep 19:123; Peterson Dep. 36:12-37:2].
(Filing No. 149 at 4–5.)
Best’s evidence confirms that an investigation into the threats against him was not
conducted because the prison officials took Best at his word that he needed protection (Filing No.
149-22 at 3). However, the evidence cited by Best does not support his assertion that Peterson
authorized or agreed to release him back into general population. The only evidence Best
designates to support this assertion is his own affidavit (see Filing No. 149-23 at 2), but Best has
11
not shown that he has the personal knowledge necessary to provide admissible evidence about this
fact. Thus, his affidavit cannot support the assertion.
The designated evidence shows that Peterson was involved with a bed reassignment within
restrictive housing on December 19, 2013 (Filing No. 149-3 at 2). However, Best seems to attribute
responsibility to Peterson for an earlier bed reassignment and release from protective custody on
October 3, 2011, but the evidence shows the change on October 3, 2011, came about because of
“RICHARDSON” and “COLE.” Id. at 3. Importantly, the bed reassignment that placed Best back
into general population on July 24, 2015, shortly before the attack, was the result of “SAFFORD”
and “MCCONN.” Id. at 1. There is no evidence that Peterson was involved in this reassignment.
While Best was in administrative segregation, his life was threatened many times by a
fellow inmate in the presence of Safford and Ballinger (Filing No. 147-1 at 9–11, 14, 64–65). Best
asserts that Peterson also witnessed these numerous threats that occurred in September 2014. He
relies on his own affidavit for this assertion (see Filing No. 149-23 at 1–2). The Defendants raise
the “sham affidavit” rule, asserting that the Court should disregard Best’s affidavit testimony
because it contradicts his earlier deposition testimony about who witnessed the numerous threats
in September 2014. See Pourghoraishi v. Flying J, Inc., 449 F.3d 751, 759 (7th Cir. 2006) (“When
a conflict arises between a plaintiff’s sworn testimony and a later affidavit or declaration, the
affidavit is to be disregarded . . . .”). Best’s earlier deposition testimony indicates that Safford and
Ballinger witnessed the numerous threats verbalized by a fellow inmate because Safford’s and
Ballinger’s offices were located next to the inmate’s cell. Best’s deposition testimony does not
conclusively establish that Peterson did not witness the threats; therefore, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to Best as the non-moving party, the Court will consider Best’s later
12
affidavit testimony that Peterson did witness these threats. The Court considers evidence in Best’s
favor when reaching its conclusion on the deliberate indifference claim against Peterson.
Concerning the email that King sent to prison officials before Best was moved back to
general population, Best argued that “Peterson reviewed Mr. Best[’s] case notes when he received
the email from King. Upon review [of] the case notes Peterson knew Mr. Best was assaulted on
January 5, 2015. Peterson said that an inmate with hot liquid thrown in his cell should be placed
in protective custody.” (Filing No. 149 at 14.) Best did not designate any evidence to support his
assertion that Peterson reviewed Best’s case notes at the time that King sent the email. There is
no admissible evidence in the record that Peterson was aware of the January 2015 incident when
King sent the email and when Best was moved back to general population. During Peterson’s
deposition taken in May 2017, Best’s counsel asked Peterson whether having hot liquid thrown on
an inmate would warrant protective custody, and Peterson stated that it would.
However,
Peterson’s after-the-fact opinion about a hypothetical and protective custody does not support
Best’s assertion and inference (1) that Peterson knew about the January 2015 incident when King
sent his email and when Best was transferred back to general population, and (2) that Peterson held
the opinion at that time (when King sent the email and when Best was transferred) that Best should
be kept in protective custody because of the hot liquid incident.
In 2012 or 2013, Peterson knew about Best getting jumped by an inmate in 2011. Peterson
knew Aryan Brotherhood gang members had tried to recruit Best into their gang. On December
19, 2013, Peterson was responsible for Best’s bed reassignment with a hold pending an
investigation. Peterson was aware of the numerous verbal threats against Best by a fellow inmate
in September 2014. Then on June 29, 2015, King sent an email to seven prison officials, including
Peterson, asking if any of them had any thoughts about restrictive housing as to fourteen inmates,
13
including Best (Filing No. 149-10). Peterson did not respond to King’s email. Then on July 6,
2015, King held a 90-day review meeting with Best and informed him that he was being transferred
out of restrictive housing and into the general population (Filing No. 149-11). King completed a
report of classification hearing (Filing No. 149-12), and Peterson was not given an opportunity to
review the report (Filing No. 147-3 at 19–20). King talked with Safford about the planned
reassignment, and Safford approved the reassignment to general population.
The evidence
indicates that King and Safford, not Peterson, made the decision to transfer Best back to general
population (Filing No. 147-1 at 33; Filing No. 149-16 at 7; Filing No. 149-3 at 1).
Peterson knew about threats to Best as late as September 2014. Nine months later King
sent an email to seven prison officials asking if any of them had any thoughts about restrictive
housing as to fourteen inmates. Peterson’s lack of response to King’s email was not an
authorization or approval to transfer Best to general population. It also was not an agreement to
transfer Best or a ratification of the transfer decision. Peterson did not make the decision to transfer
Best back to general population, which eventually led to his attack. Peterson’s lack of response
may rise to the level of negligence, but his actions do not amount to a deliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of serious harm to Best. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor
of Peterson on Best’s deliberate indifference claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
(Filing No. 146). The constitutional claim for deliberate indifference asserted against Defendants
Blaine Hurt and Walter Peterson is dismissed. With no remaining claims asserted against them,
Blaine Hurt and Walter Peterson are terminated as defendants in this matter. Best’s claims asserted
14
against Defendants Indiana Department of Correction, Dushan Zatecky, John Safford, Jeffery
King, and Herbert Duncan remain pending for trial.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/29/2019
DISTRIBUTION:
Bessie M. Davis
LAW OFFICE OF BESSIE M. DAVIS, LLC
legal2615@yahoo.com
David C. Dickmeyer
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
David.Dickmeyer@atg.in.gov
Benjamin Myron Lane Jones
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
benjamin.jones@atg.in.gov
Jonathan Paul Nagy
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
jonathan.nagy@atg.in.gov
15
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?