Walker v. Thompson et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, denying 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment by William B. Walker.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 8/25/11.(SMT)cc: COR, Walker via USMail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
ASHLAND
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-54-HRW
PLAINTIFF
WILLIAMB. WALKER
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VS:
LADONNA H. THOMPSON, et al.
DEFENDANTS
***** ***** *****
Plaintiff William B. Walker, an inmate at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex ("EKCC") a state prison in West Liberty, Kentucky ,pro se, filed this action,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting various claims of civil rights violations
against defendants LaDonna H. Thompson, Commissioner of the Kentucky
Department of Corrections; Joseph Meko, Warden at Little Sandy Correctional
Complex;l and Colleen Fanning, a Correctional Officer at LSCC. Walker seeks
injunctive relief and damages. This matter is proceeding on Walker's claims that (1)
defendants' policy of racial segregation in two-man cells violated his Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection, and (2) the Kentucky Department of
At the time Walker filed his complaint, he was in inmate at the Little Sandy Correctional
Complex ("LSCC") in Little Sandy, Kentucky. He has since been transferred to NTC.
1
Corrections ("KDOC") has violated federal law by deducting his social security
disability benefits from his inmate account for payment of fines imposed by the
Kentucky courts.
This matter is currently before the Court on Walker's motion for summary
judgment as to liability on both of his claims. This motion has been fully briefed and
is ripe for review. Because Walker has failed to establish that there is no genuine
issue as to a material fact regarding each of his claims, he is not entitled to summary
judgment. The rationale underlying the Court's decision is set forth below.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Standard for Summary Judgment
In Menuskin v. Williams, 145 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 1998), the Sixth Circuit
reiterated the standard to be employed when considering a motion for summary
judgment, as follows:
. . . 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, we view the
evidence so that all justifiable inferences are drawn in favor of the
non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574,587,106 S.Ct. 1348,89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Men uskin, 145 F.3d at 761. See also Street v. J. C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472
2
(6th Cir. 1989).
The Court approaches Walker's motion for summary judgment with this
standard in mind. At the outset, the Court notes that a Scheduling Order has not been
entered in this case and that no discovery has occurred.
Hence, there are no
depositions, no answers to Interrogatories, no responses to any Requests for
Admission, and no affidavits of record for reference in evaluating Walker's motion
for summary judgment.
1.
Claim of racial segregation in two-man cells
Walker asserts that it is the policy of prison officials at LSCC to racially
segregate in two-man cells and that he was subjected to that policy, in violation ofhis
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. In support of this claim, Walker
relies on a statement contained in the response LSCC Unit Director Terry Hall made
in response to a grievance Walker filed at LSCC about racial segregation in two-man
cells. This response is set out in full below:
LSCC does not discriminate in its housing policy. Every inmate has the
opportunity to sign a double bunk sheet with whomever they like. The
Unit Administrators will complete a movesheet and place these
individuals in the cell together. This is done without regard to race,
religion, creed, national origin or any other limiting factor. LSCC and
every other institution in the state does not force bunk the different
races due to security issues. Again, any race may sign up together on
a double bunk sheet and will be housed together. (Emphasis added).
3
See Inmate Grievance Form [R. 33-1] (Exhibit to plaintiffs Reply To Defendants'
Response To Motion For Summary Judgment [R. 33]).
Walker relies only on the foregoing sentence highlighted in bold from Terry
Hall's response.
Defendants deny that such a policy exists at LSCC and assert that they do not
engage in racial discrimination when placing inmates in cells together. Defendants,
by counsel, state that cell assignments at LSCC are based on a number of factors,
such as age, security level, and classification score. They also state that LSCC
inmates may request to be housed with a particular inmate and that if this request is
proper and not a threat to institutional security, it is permitted.
Although the argument ofdefendants' counsel is not sworn testimony on which
the Court can rely, the response ofLSCC Unit Director Terry Hall at least presents
a factual dispute involving a genuine issue of material fact which precludes granting
plaintiff summary judgment on this claim.
2.
Deduction of social security benefits from his inmate account to pay fines
Walker also claims that the defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 407 by
deducting social security benefits from his inmate account for the payment of fines,
when such funds are exempt from seizure or attachment under the anti-attachment
provision of the Social Security Act.
4
In response, defendants' counsel states that the defendants have taken no action
to seize Walker's social security benefits, that the KDOC has never received a Social
Security check either from Walker or on his behalf, and that the KDOC has not
initiated any proceedings with the Social Security Administration to garnish or attach
Walker's social security benefits. Defendants' counsel states that the only funds
deducted from Walker's inmate account are those funds that have been deposited
thereto via personal check or money order. For these reasons, defendants contend
that Walker is not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
In reply, Walker states that his social security benefits have been deposited to
his bank account by direct deposit, presumably from the Social Security
Administration, that such funds are then transferred from his bank account,
presumably at his request to the bank, to his prison inmate account. Walker submits
that his social security benefits, even when co-mingled with other funds, do not lose
their "exempt" status simply because they are first deposited to his bank account
before being transferred at a later date to his prison inmate account. However,
Walker has provided no evidence that the source of the funds deducted from his
prison inmate account can be traced to his directly-deposited social security benefits,
and he has provided no authority for his argument that social security funds co
mingled with other funds retain their exempt-from-attachment status.
5
As no discovery has been conducted in this case, the Court concludes that a
genuine issue of material fact presently exists as to whether the defendants have
unlawfully deducted Walker's social security benefits from his prison inmate account;
thus, Walker is not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that PlaintiffWilliam B. Walker's
motion for summary judgment [R. 31] is DENIED.
This 25 th day of August, 2011.
-Sy'
HInR· WIhoit Jr.
United States Dlstnct_
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?