Carroll et al v. Fentress Co Sheriff Depart. et al

Filing 333

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Wasik's 307 MOTION for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, and that the 1 Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The undersigned further recommends that all pending motions be DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 1/24/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA LEE CAROLL, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs
v.
FENTRESS COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants
TO:

No. 2:11-0019
Judge Sharp/Bryant
Jury Demand

THE HONORABLE KEVIN H. SHARP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Laurel Wasik has filed her motion for summary

judgment

(Docket

Entry

No.

307).

Plaintiff

King,

a

prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed his response in
opposition (Docket Entry No. 325).
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge recommends that Defendant Wasik’s motion for summary judgment
be GRANTED, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs Joshua Lee Carroll and William Carter King
filed their pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that Defendants violated their constitutional rights by failing to
correct unsanitary conditions in the Fentress County Jail and by
being willfully indifferent to Plaintiffs’ serious medical needs
(Docket Entry No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs complained about
unsanitary

conditions

resulting

from

faulty

plumbing

and

the

presence of “black mold” in the jail.
Plaintiff Carroll’s claims were dismissed for his failure
to prosecute and his failure to keep the court informed of his

current address (Docket Entry No. 260). In addition, Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Fentress County Sheriff’s Department and
Defendant Faye Smith have previously been dismissed (Docket Entry
Nos. 87 and 320), leaving Plaintiff King’s claims against Defendant
Wasik as the only surviving claim in the case.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party may obtain summary judgment by showing “that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); Covington v. Knox County School Sys., 205 F.3d
912, 914 (6th Cir. 2000).

The moving party bears the initial

burden of satisfying the court that the standards of Rule 56 have
been met.
1986).

See Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 239 n.4 (6th Cir.

The ultimate question to be addressed is whether there

exists any genuine dispute of material fact.

See Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Covington, 205
F.3d at 914 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986)). If so, summary judgment is inappropriate.
To defeat a properly supported motion for summary
judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
If the party does not so respond, summary judgment will be
entered if appropriate.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

The nonmoving

party’s burden of providing specific facts demonstrating that
there remains a genuine issue of material fact for trial is
2

triggered once the moving party shows an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. A
genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.”

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

In ruling on a motion for

summary judgment, the Court must construe the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all
justifiable inferences in its favor. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Prison
officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing,
shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to
guarantee their safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994).

A

prison’s

conditions

of

confinement

fail

to

meet

constitutional requirements if they fall beneath “the minimal
civilized

measure

of

life’s

necessities”

as

measured

by

a

“contemporary standard of decency.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.
337, 347 (1981). A prison official inflicting such conditions acts
with a sufficiently culpable state of mind if he does so with
“deliberate indifference.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303
(1991). A prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement
unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

3

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 this inference. Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837.
Defendant Laurel Wasik served as the Jail Administrator
of the Fentress County Jail from September 1, 2010, until August
18, 2011 (Docket Entry No. 312 at 1). On September 2, 2010,
Plaintiff King was transferred from the Fentress County Jail to the
Overton County Jail, where he remained until September 28, 2010,
when he was transferred back to the Fentress County Jail (Docket
Entry No. 313 at 3).
Plaintiff King’s complaint against Defendant Wasik is
based

upon

claims

of

(1)

unsanitary

conditions

at

the

jail

including but not limited to “black mold,” and (2) deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs.
According to the declaration of Defendant Wasik (Docket
Entry No. 312), she began improvements at the jail shortly after
beginning her employment there in early September 2010. She began
by having the jail cleaned and painted (Id.). She identified a
Cookeville plumbing company (All American Plumbing) and obtained
county approval of purchase orders to perform plumbing work in the
jail. Approval was obtained on September 28, 2010, and the work was
commenced on October 2, 2010, four days after Plaintiff King
returned

from

the

Overton

County

Jail.

Additional

work

was

performed later in October 2010, and the total cost of this work
exceeded $6,700. The work included repair and replacement of
4

plumbing and plumbing fixtures within the jail (Docket Entry No.
312 at 2).
In

addition,

Defendant

Wasik

took

steps

to

address

complaints of mold within the jail.1 Specifically, mold that was
found was removed by spraying with bleach and scraping or brushing
surfaces to remove all traces of mold. In addition, the jail
obtained a professional evaluation that suggested that the jail’s
ventilation system needed modifications to remove moisture from the
air that resulted in condensation, promoting the growth of mold. On
January 7, 2011, Drain Masters Plumbing and Mark Flatt submitted a
proposal to revamp the HVAC unit in the jail in order to reduce
moisture in the air and resulting condensation. The cost of this
proposal was $9,800. On January 20, 2011, All American Plumbing
submitted a proposal for revamping the HVAC system and removal of
moisture and mold within the jail. This proposal was accepted and
All American began work under this proposal in late January 2011.
This work was completed later in 2011.
In addition, All American Plumbing performed additional
plumbing work at the jail on January 24, March 9, and March 16,
2011 (Docket Entry No. 312 at 4-5).
Although it appears evident from the record that plumbing
problems and a problem with mold existed at the Fentress County
jail in 2010, it also appears that Defendant Wasik began addressing

1

This mold has been described as “black mold,” apparently based upon
its visual appearance, throughout the record. However, neither Plaintiff
nor Defendants have subjected this substance to scientific analysis to
determine its identity.

5

these problems almost as soon as she began her employment in early
September 2010. As stated above, she had the walls of the jail
cleaned and freshly painted, she obtained approval to employ All
American Plumbing to do substantial repairs and replacements on the
plumbing

and

fixtures

within

the

jail.

In

addition,

she

had

existing mold removed with bleach and scrubbing, and arranged to
have considerable work performed on the heating and ventilating
system at the jail in order to remove moisture in the air and
resulting condensation that tended to promote the growth of mold.
This work, and the costs incurred by Fentress County in order to
have it done, are documented in the record and are undisputed. From
this

evidence,

Plaintiff

King

the
has

undersigned
failed

to

Magistrate

demonstrate

Judge
a

finds

genuine

that

issue

of

material fact for trial supporting his claim that Defendant Wasik
was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to him
resulting from unsanitary conditions within the jail.
The declaration of Barbara Rogers (Docket Entry No. 313)
also demonstrates that Plaintiff King received medical examinations
and treatment at the Fentress County Jail on a multitude of
occasions, both before and after Defendant Wasik began her tenure
as jail administrator. Specifically, after Plaintiff King was
returned to the Fentress County Jail from the Overton County Jail
on September 28, 2010, he was provided prescription medications
Ranitidine and amoxicillin on November 4, 2010 (Docket Entry No.
313 at 3). He began receiving Tramadol on December 15, 2010.
Following complaints of a rash, he was seen by Nurse Smith and
6

prescribed Nystatin and Benadryl on or about February 1, 2011.
Plaintiff King was released from the Fentress County Jail
on February 24, 2011, to participate in rehabilitation treatments
at Faith Farms in Florida (Docket Entry No. 313 at 4). Moreover,
Plaintiff King was seen at the jail by Nurse Faye Smith on multiple
occasions between September 28, 2010, and King’s release (Docket
Entry No. 151-1 at 4-5).
In his declaration filed in response to Defendant Wasik’s
motion, Plaintiff King asserts that he was incarcerated at the
Fentress County Jail in the fall of 2010, that he has scarring on
his legs and genitals, and that these scars “are the result of time
or something going on at the jail during 2010-2011" (Docket Entry
No. 325 at 1). Plaintiff King further states that he requested his
medical records and copies of his grievances from Defendant Wasik,
that he did receive his medical records, but that Defendant Wasik
could not provide the requested copies of his grievances. Plaintiff
King further states in his declaration that he was “forced to live
in a jail cell with raw sewage and human waste in the floor,” and
that he requested Defendant Wasik to send him to another jail until
the problem with the sewage was repaired but she refused to do so.
(Id.)
From

the

undisputed

evidence

in

this

record,

the

undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff King has failed
to demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact regarding
Defendant Wasik’s alleged deliberate indifference to a serious risk
of injury from unsanitary jail conditions or Plaintiff King’s
7

serious medical needs. To the contrary, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that Defendant Wasik, almost from the first day on the
job as jail administrator, took multiple steps to address apparent
problems

with

the

plumbing

at

the

jail

and

the

problems

of

excessive moisture and condensation promoting the growth of mold
within the facility. In addition, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
finds from the undisputed record that Plaintiff King was seen on
multiple occasions by a nurse in response to his various medical
complaints during Defendant Wasik’s tenure, and that Plaintiff was
provided

by

the

jail

with

multiple

prescription

medications

calculated to address his various medical complaints.
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge finds that Defendant Wasik has shown that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and that she is entitled to
judgment was a matter of law.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge recommends that Defendant Wasik’s motion for summary judgment
be GRANTED, and that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The
undersigned further recommends that all pending motions be DENIED
as moot.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any

party

has

14

days

from

receipt

of

this

Report

and

Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court.

Any party opposing said

objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed
8

in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections.
Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of
this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 106 S.

Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), Reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
ENTER this 24th day of January, 2014.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

9