United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. White, United States District Judge.
action is before the Court on Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. The Court has before it for consideration
Plaintiff's third amended complaint (Dkt. 61),
Defendants' motion (Dkt. 101), and a special report
prepared by Davis Correctional Facility (DCF) at the
direction of the Court, in accordance with Martinez v.
Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (Dkt. 94).
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' motion,
instead filing a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 102).
an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Dick Conner
Correctional Center in Hominy, Oklahoma, brings this action
under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking
monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations during
his incarceration at DCF in Holdenville, Oklahoma. The
defendants are Corrections Corporation of America and the
following DCF officials: Ray Larimer; Traci Tanner, Nurse;
FNU Doyle; FNU Berry, Unit Manager; FNU Gentry, Chief of
Security; FNU Madrid, Chief of Unit Managers; FNU Riddle,
Captain; Bobby Booner, Deputy Warden; Jamie Balwin, Nurse;
C/C Hovinetz; Tim Wilkerson, Warden; Nurse Bowers; and
Correctional Officer Laurnt.
third amended complaint (Dkt. 61) is difficult to understand,
and portions are not legible. His statement of the nature of
1# Medical neglect--needs as one that has been diagnosed by a
2# The use of force.
#3 [sic] The conditions you placed me in [illegible] consider
when determining the adequacy of prison conditions no lights
in the cell no heat water on the floor no matt [sic] to sleep
on plus 72 hrs. no soap [illegible] toothpaste & no
(Dkt. 61 at 2).
claims in Count 1 that on December 9, 2014, the medical staff
did not provide his blood pressure pills or a mattress when
he was in pain (Dkt. 61 at 2). He also alleges that on an
unspecified date, Defendant Doyle made him lie on the ground,
then Doyle was untruthful about the matter. Id. at
3. Plaintiff also claims that on an unspecified date and at
the direction of Defendant Warden Wilkinson, Defendant
Hovinetz took him to “jail” and lay on him,
saying Plaintiff had threatened her. Id. at 4.
Defendant Berry allegedly “watched the hold [sic] thing
and could have stopped it.” Id. In Count 2,
Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2014, Berry came to
his cell door and threatened Plaintiff, saying Doyle did not
use force on Plaintiff. Id. at 8.
Count 3 Plaintiff claims that C/O Hudson called Defendant
Nurse Tanner, the nurse on duty, and told her that Plaintiff
needed medication and to check Plaintiff's medical
records for any medical instructions. Id. Plaintiff
also alleges Defendant Deputy Warden Bobby Booner saw
Plaintiff in lock-up and received a copy of a “civil
matter.” Id. Booner, however, would not help
Plaintiff. Id. (Dkt. 61 at 8).
judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A
dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that “a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material if it “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law.” Id. In making this determination,
“[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed,
and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor.” Id. at 255. A party opposing a motion
for summary judgment, however, may not simply allege there
are disputed issues of fact; rather, the party must support
its assertions by citing to the record or by showing the
moving party cannot produce admissible evidence to support
the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Thus, the inquiry for this
Court is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.