Gaines v. Rushing et al
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 4/7/14. A separate judgment will be entered. (dfk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE B. GAINES
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11cv727-FKB
MARY RUSHING, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Willie Gaines, a state inmate, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
challenging the conditions of his confinement while a pretrial detainee at the Hinds County
Detention Center (HCDC). The Court previously granted summary judgment on a number
of claims. Remaining are claims against Malcolm McMillan and Mary Rushing, who were,
during the relevant time period, the sheriff of Hinds County and the administrator of
HCDC, respectively. These claims were tried before the Court on March 25, 2014.
Having considered the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In his testimony, Gaines gave the following account of the incidents underlying his
claims. Gaines was booked into HCDC on or about October 13, 2011. After going
through routine booking procedures, he was placed in a severely overcrowded holding
tank with approximately thirty or forty other inmates. The area was so crowded that he
was forced to sleep directly on the floor under the edge of the toilet. The next morning,
Gaines needed to use the restroom. Because there was no toilet paper in the holding
tank, he knocked on the door in an attempt to get the attention of the guards. Instead of
assisting Gaines, one of the guards placed tape over the glass in the door, blocking the
view in or out of the area. Because he had no toilet paper, Gaines was forced to use his
sleeping blanket to clean himself after defecating. He then had to continue using the
blanket for sleeping. Gaines testified that he was held in the holding tank under these
conditions for two weeks, during which period he was not allowed to take a shower.
Finally, on or about October 27, 2011, Gaines was moved to a cell.
Plaintiff’s only testimony concerning Defendants’ involvement was that McMillin and
Rushing failed to respond to complaints he made after he was moved out of the holding
tank. He offered no evidence that they had any knowledge of the situation; neither did he
present any evidence that the situation was frequent or ongoing, such that these officials
could be charged with either actual or constructive knowledge. For this reason, the claims
against McMillin and Rushing in their individual capacities were dismissed at the close of
Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, the undersigned finds that neither
is there any basis for holding Defendants liable in their official capacities, i.e., for county
liability. Defendant Rushing’s testimony persuasively undermined Gaines’s descriptions
of conditions in the holding cell. Rushing explained that she routinely made daily rounds
in the booking area and that she had never seen the holding cell with as many detainees
described by Plaintiff or with detainees being required to sleep on the floor without
mattresses. The Court finds that Gaines’s testimony concerning the number of detainees
in the cell and the conditions therein was not credible. Furthermore, even if Plaintiff’s
testimony were accepted as true, his official-capacity claims would nevertheless fail, as he
presented no evidence that overcrowding and other problems in the holding cell were “so
common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represent[ed] the [county’s]
2
policy.” Cox v. City of Dallas, 430 F.3d 734, 748 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Gaines has failed to establish a constitutional
violation by Defendants or by Hinds County. A separate judgment in favor of Defendants
will be entered.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 7th day of April, 2014.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?