Watts v. Pickett et al

Filing 76

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 75 Report and Recommendations. The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants Jod y Bradley, Gabriel Walker, and Diania Walker are entitled to summary judgment and are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Watts' claim against Defendant Pickett may proceed to trial. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Signed by District Judge David C. Bramlette, III on 11/13/2019 (sl) (Main Document 76 replaced on 11/13/2019) (LAT).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CARL WATTS #77138
Vs.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-38-DCB-MTP

RICHARD PICKETT, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jody Bradley,
Richard Pickett, Diania Walker, and Gabriel Walker’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 65), Plaintiff Carl Watts (“Watts”)’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 67), and Magistrate Judge
Michael T. Parker’s unopposed Report and Recommendation (Doc.
75). Having read the Motion, memoranda in support, applicable
statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully informed in
the premises, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report
and Recommendation.
Background
Plaintiff Watts is a post-conviction inmate in the custody
of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), who is
currently housed at Wilkinson County Correctional Facility
(“WCCF”). Watts filed this civil-rights lawsuit on March 27,
2017 alleging that several prison officials failed to protect
him from harm from other inmates.

1

Watts alleges that on November 7, 2007, he was housed in
protective custody “Delta Pod” in cell 212. He worked as an
orderly at the prison, which involved passing out food and
cleaning the cell zone. Watts claims that Defendant Officer
Richard Pickett entered his zone on November 7, 2017 and that,
while Pickett was within earshot, inmates Randy Williams,
Phillip McClendon, Leo Perez, and Gary Hughes, in cells 109 and
110, were yelling that they were going to attack the Plaintiff
when he passed out breakfast that morning.
Watts claims that Officer Pickett then unlocked cells 109
and 110 despite instruction from another correctional officer
that the only cells to be opened that morning were Watts’ cell
(212) and inmate Kenneth Brewer’s cell (209). Watts, under oath,
testified that he told Officer Pickett that he did not want to
come out that morning to do his orderly duties because inmates
were threatening him. However, Watts claims that Officer Picket
ignored the threats and opened his cell anyway.
When Watts left his cell to get the breakfast trays, inmate
Randy Williams entered Watts unlocked cell and hid inside. Watts
passed out the trays and then Officer Pickett left the zone.
When Watts returned to his cell he was attacked by Williams who
allegedly stabbed and bit him. Williams called for help during
the fight. Phillip McClendon, Leo Perez, and Gary Hughes then

2

entered the cell and assaulted Watts. McClendon allegedly
stabbed him in the leg, and they stole his belongings. Several
officers entered the zone and handled the situation. Watts was
then taken for medical attention.
While Watts was receiving medical treatment, he told Unit
Manager Diania Walker and Deputy Warden Gabriel Walker to put
“red tags” on the inmates who assaulted him, i.e., a request to
be kept separate from the inmates. After his medical treatment,
Diania Walker took Watts to long-term segregation. Plaintiff
claims that Diania Walker told him on December 12, 2016 that he
was being transferred back to the Delta-Pod (“D-Pod”). Watts
objected to being returned to the zone where he was assaulted
and asserts that Deputy Warden Gabriel Walker ordered Diania
Walker to put him back in the D-Pod. Watts was not assaulted
when he was put back in the D-Pod, but he started a fire on May
30, 2017 so that he would be removed from the zone. At the time
of the omnibus hearing, Watts was no longer housed in the D-Pod.
Standard of Review
A party is entitled to 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 Court is not permitted to make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence at the summary judgment

3

stage of litigation. See Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 164
(5th Cir. 2009)(citing Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr.,
476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2010)). All facts and inferences
must be made in “the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assoc.,
L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted). “It
is improper for the district court to ‘resolve factual disputes
by weighing conflicting evidence, … since it is the province of
the jury to assess the probative value of the evidence.’”
McDonald v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 2005 WL 2474701, at *3
(S.D. Miss. Apr. 29, 2005) (quoting Kennett-Murray Corp. v.
Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 892 (5th Cir. 1980)).
Discussion
Defendant Pickett
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Parker’s
recommendation to deny summary judgment on this claim. Watts
sues Defendant Pickett for failing to protect him from the
attack on November 7, 2016. To establish a § 1983 failure to
protect claim against a prison official, a plaintiff “must show
that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm and that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his needs for protection.” Neals v. Norwood, 59
F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825 (1994)). To act with deliberate indifference, “the official
4

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.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Deliberate indifference is “an extremely high standard to meet.”
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006).
There is dispute as to whether Watts told Officer Pickett
that he was afraid of the other inmates or if he communicated
his fear of the four attackers prior to the altercation. Pickett
claims that Watts never voiced any concerns to him. However,
Watts testified at the omnibus hearing that Officer Pickett
should have clearly heard the other inmates yelling threats at
him and that he had reported his fear to Pickett that morning.
This creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
or not Pickett was aware of the threat to Watts’ safety and if
he acted with deliberate indifference by unlocking Watts’ cell
while the other inmates were out of their cells.
Pickett argues that he is entitled to summary judgment
because Watts voluntarily left his cell and inserted himself
into a dangerous situation. Magistrate Parker correctly opines
that it does not matter whether Watts remained in his cell or
left it. According to Watts’ sworn testimony, Defendant Pickett
unlocked Watts’ cell and left the zone. It is not disputed that

5

Watts’ attackers were out of their cells and that Pickett left
the zone with Watts’ cell unlocked.
Defendant Bradley
Defendant Bradley, the warden of WCCF, also moves for
summary judgment. His motion should be granted because he was
not present when the assault occurred, and supervisory officials
cannot be vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. It is
undisputed that Bradley was not involved in any manner in the
relevant incident, and that there is no causal connection
between any wrongful conduct on his part and Watts’ § 1983
claim. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987).
Failure to Protect After Attack
Watts also sues Defendants Gabriel Walker, Diania Walker,
and Jody Bradley for failing to protect him after the attack.
His claim centers around these Defendants’ decision to move
Watts back to D-Pod, where the attack occurred. “Absent a
showing that other inmates harmed [Plaintiff], there is no
factual basis for a failure to protect claim.” Walzier v.
McMullen, 333 Fed.App’x 848, 851 (5th Cir. 2009); see also,
Johnson v. Burnley, 2018 WL 1341727, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 9,
2018)(holding that plaintiff had to demonstrate an actual
physical harm resulting from the conduct of prison officials to
establish a failure to protect claim). “In the absence of any
allegation of physical injury, [a plaintiff] fail[s] to allege
6

facts which would support a claim for compensatory damages.”
Brooks v. Walker, 2019 WL 4315020, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 10,
2019). It is not disputed that Watts did not suffer any type of
physical injury after being transferred back to D-Pod.
Therefore, he cannot allege facts that would support a claim for
compensatory damages.
To the extent that Watts is seeking injunctive relief –
that he be housed in another prison – he cannot prevail. “An
inmate does not have a constitutional right to serve a sentence
in any particular institution, or to be transferred or not
transferred from one facility to another.” Johnson v. King, 2013
WL 1729247, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 22, 2013)( citing Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983)).
Therefore, Watts is not entitled to compensatory or
injunctive relief on his failure to protect claim, and summary
judgment should be granted.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Watts did not reply to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 65). However, he filed his own Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 67). The Court has construed the Motion (67) as a
response to Motion (65) because the Plaintiff generally responds
to the issues raised in the Defendants’ Motion. As such, his

7

Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied as it is a response
to the Defendants’ Motion.
Conclusion
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Jody Bradley, Gabriel Walker, and
Diania Walker. However, there is a genuine dispute of material
fact regarding the failure to protect claim against Defendant
Picket.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation GRANTING IN
PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 65). Defendants Jody Bradley, Gabriel Walker, and Diania
Walker are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff Watts’ claim
against Defendant Pickett may proceed to trial. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of November, 2019.
_/s/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8