Taylor v. Banks et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING in part 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part, denying in part 62 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants; denying 69 Motion to Produce filed by Charlie Lee Taylor, 53 Motion for Summary Judgment filed b y Charlie Lee Taylor, 68 Motion to Strike filed by Charlie Lee Taylor, and 65 Motion to Compel filed by Charlie Lee Taylor. Dispositive motion deadline as to issue of exhaustion set for 4/11/14, if defendants so choose. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/11/14 (copy mailed to Charlie Taylor at #R6798, MSP, Unit 29-D Building, Parchman, MS 38738)(LWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CHARLIE LEE TAYLOR

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11CV650TSL-JMR

SEAN P. BANKS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the objections of
plaintiff Charlie Lee Taylor to the magistrate judge’s December
16, 2013 report and recommendation, which recommended that
defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that all of
plaintiff’s motions, save his motion for a preliminary
injunction,1 be denied.
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations set forth in the report and recommendation, as
well as plaintiff’s objections, and all other relevant documents
in the record, and having made a de novo review of the objected-to
portions of the report and recommendation, the court adopts in
part and rejects in part the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge.

Specifically, the court adopts the magistrate

judge's findings and conclusions with regard to the proposed
disposition of plaintiff’s pending motions, as well as to the
disposition of plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all

1

The magistrate judge recommended denial of this motion
via a separate report and recommendation.

defendants and the individual capacity claims against all
defendants, except Sean Banks and Sharon Paige, whom Taylor
alleges assaulted him while he was in his bed and later while he
was handcuffed.

With regard to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

excessive force claim against Banks and Paige, having reviewed the
record, the court now concludes that the evidence, construed in
the light most favorable to Taylor, reveals the existence of
genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the injuries
suffered as a result of the alleged incident were de minimis.
Brown v. Lippard, 472 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2006).

See

Further,

additional issues of fact exist regarding whether Banks and/or
Paige assaulted Taylor or otherwise injured him and, if so,
whether this was done maliciously or in a good faith effort to
restore discipline.2

2

In support of their motion, defendants submitted copies
of two rules violations reports issued by Banks following the
August 24, 2008 incident with Taylor. According to these document
during a security check, Banks found Taylor in bed with a cell
phone and cell phone charger and upon being discovered with this
contraband, Taylor stuck a SIM card in his mouth and attempted to
flee. Per the RVRs, during his flight, Taylor hit Banks with
force in the chest, after which Banks restrained him and took him
to see the facility’s nurse. While the narrative contained in
these documents does counter the allegation that Banks maliciously
assaulted Taylor in his bed and would seem to supply a good faith
reason for this particular use of force by Banks, it does not
touch upon the further allegation that Banks and Paige later
assaulted Taylor while he was hand cuffed and was presumably
defenseless. In support of the motion, defendants also submitted
an unsigned statement by fellow guard Stephanie Boggan, by which
Boggans recites that she saw Banks and Taylor scuffling and saw
Taylor assault Banks. Taylor specifically and understandably
2

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the
December 16, 2013 report and recommendation is adopted in part and
rejected in part. It is further ordered that defendants’ motion
for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

It is

additionally ordered that plaintiff’s motions for summary
judgment, to compel medication, to strike defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and to produce certain documents are denied.
Finally, as the court’s review of the complaint demonstrates
that Taylor’s compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (requiring
prisoner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing
suit), is questionable and as defendants raised this affirmative
defense via their answer, in an effort to conserve the
considerable judicial resources which would be expended in
conducting a jury trial, the court will afford defendants an
opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment raising the
issue of exhaustion.

Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 272-73

(2010)(concluding that exhaustion is threshold issue which is
preferably addressed via motion for summary judgment and stating
that judge may decide factual issues related to exhaustion without

objects to the court’s consideration of this unsigned document.
While the court agrees that the unsigned statement is not
competent proof, it, in any event, addresses only the complaint
that Banks attacked Taylor in bed and not the additional charge
that plaintiff was beaten while hand cuffed. In fact, the
defendants have presented no proof nor offered any argument
bearing on this allegation.
3

aid of jury).

Accordingly, defendants may file a motion for

summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion on or before April 11,
2014.3
SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2014.

/s/ Tom S. Lee_____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

In the event that defendants decline this opportunity,
the court will enter an order setting the matter for trial and
dealing with any outstanding pretrial matters.
4