Jones v. Lucas

DONOVAN JONES ADC #149567 PLAINTIFF v. DAVID LUCAS, Sheriff, Jackson County Sheriff Department, et al. DEFENDANTS

No. 1:18CV00067-BSM-JTR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

February 24, 2021

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The following Recommended Disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections, Judge Miller may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

I. Introduction

On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff Donovan Jones ("Jones") was a pre-trial detainee in the Jackson County Detention Center (JCDC).¹ Mark Millbrooks("Millbrooks"), an "Act 309" inmate,² entered Jones's housing pod to collect laundry, and a fight took place between Jones and Millbrooks.

Jones, proceeding pro se, later filed this § 1983 action against Defendants David Lucas, Travis Chapman, Johnathon Seals, Winter Kendall, Kurt Cooper, the Jackson County Jail, and the insurer of the Jackson County Jail. After screening the Complaint, the Court allowed Jones to proceed with: (1) his § 1983 failure to protect and state tort claims against Correctional Officer Johnathon Seals ("Defendant Seals") and Shift Sergeant Winter Kendall ("Defendant Kendall"); and (2) his § 1983 failure to protect, failure to train and supervise, delayed medical care and state tort claims against Sheriff David Lucas ("Defendant Lucas"). Docs. 4 & 5. Jones seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants. Doc. 2.

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Statement of Undisputed Facts, along with supporting Exhibits, and a Brief in Support. Docs 31-34. Jones has filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion of Summary Judgment and a Response to the Statement of Undisputed Facts. Docs. 36 & 37. A video of the altercation has been filed under seal by Defendants and carefully reviewed by the Court. Doc. 27 (sealed). This video captures most of the altercation and isindisputable evidence of what took place between Jones and Millbrooks in the common area outside of Jones's cell. Id.

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials but must demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007).

The nonmoving party's allegations must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must be supported by materials in the record such as "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials ...". Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause areasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).

Before reaching the merits of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will review the undisputed material facts relevant to Jones's claims.

III. Facts³

1. Jones entered the JCDC as a pre-trial detainee on June 8, 2016. Doc. 37, ¶ 1. At the time of the altercation on January 17, 2017, Jones was still a pre-trial detainee. Doc. 37, ¶ 5.

2. On January 27, 2017, Jones was sentenced to 240 months in prison. Doc. 32, Exh. A at 22. On February 2, 2017, Jones was transferred to the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) to begin serving his sentence. Id. at 28.

3. In January of 2017, the JCDC housed several Act 309 inmates who performed maintenance, clerical, and other services, including cleaning and laundry. Doc. 37, ¶ 4; Doc. 32, ¶ 5.

4. The Act 309 inmates were housed separately from other detainees in the JCDC but were permitted to enter jail pods to perform cleaning and laundry services. Id.

5. "[E]arlier in the day," on January 17, 2017, Jones and Millbrooks got into an argument. According to Jones, Defendants Seals and Kendall "witnessed" this argument. Doc. 36 at 1.

6. At approximately 11:45 p.m. on the night of January 17, 2017, Defendant Seals electronically unlocked the door to C-pod, from his guard station, to allow Millbrooks to retrieve dirty laundry from all the prisoners in C-pod. Doc. 37, ¶ 9. As a 309 inmate, retrieving dirty laundry from cells and washing it was part of Millbrooks authorized work.

7. Once Millbrooks was inside C-pod, Defendant Seals electronically unlocked the door to Jones's cell so Millbrooks could get his laundry. Doc. 37, ¶ 9.

8. The altercation between Jones and Millbrooks started inside the cell and is not captured in the video. Doc. 37, ¶ 9; Doc. 27 (sealed). However, the combatants quickly moved into the common area in C-pod where the video shows what took place during their altercation. Doc. 27 (sealed).

9. Defendant Seals received a call on the C-pod intercom notifying him of the altercation, and he left his guard post and went to C-pod. Doc. 37, ¶ 8 & 9.

10. When Defendant Seals arrived at C-pod, the fight had ended and Millbrooks was walking away from Jones to exit C-pod. Jones threw a push broom at Millbrooks, reigniting the altercation. Doc. 27 (sealed).

11. Millbrooks picked up the push broom and tried to hit Jones with it. Jones wrestled the broom away from Millbrooks and swung it at him. The altercation ended with Millbrooks exiting C-pod and Jones giving chase while swinging the broom at him. Doc. 27 (sealed).

12. After the altercation, Defendant Seals contacted the jail administrator to inform him of the fight. Defendant Seals placed Jones and the other C-pod detainees in lock-down. Defendant Kendall escorted Millbrooks to his cell and placed him in lock-down.⁴ Doc. 37, ¶ 9; Doc. 32, Exh. 3, ¶ 2.

13. The jail administrator arrived at the JCDC around 12:10 a.m. on January 18, 2017. He reviewed the video of the altercation and began an investigation. Doc. 37, ¶ 13.

14. Defendant Kendall, the shift sergeant on duty when the altercation occurred, did not witness the altercation. Defendant Lucas was not present in the JCDC on the night of the altercation. Doc. 37, ¶ 10, 11. 15. Statements were obtained from Millbrooks, Jones, and two C-pod detainees who were in Jones's cell when the altercation began. Doc. 37, ¶ 7; Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 8, 9, 10-11, 13-16.

16. The statements from Jones and the other C-pod detainees indicated that the fight was initiated by Millbrooks. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 9, 10-11, 13-16.

17. The statement from Millbrooks indicated that the fight was initiated by Jones. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 8.⁵

18. Defendant Seals wrote an Incident Report and submitted an Affidavit in support of Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts. In both of those documents, Defendant Seals stated that he did not witness the beginning of the altercation; and, when he arrived at C-pod, he saw Jones swinging a push broom at Millbrooks, who was about to exit C-pod. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 6, 27; Doc. 32, Exh. 2.

19. After the altercation, Millbrooks was no longer permitted to serve as Act 309 inmate at JCDC, and he was later returned to the ADC. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 2-3; Doc 32, Exh. 2, ¶ 6.

20. Before his altercation with Millbrooks on January 17, 2017, Jones did not inform Defendants Seals, Kendall, or Lucas that: (1) he feared Millbrooks; (2)Millbrooks had threatened him on January 17, 2017; or (3) he believed, based on Millbrooks's recent threat, he might attack him. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 3; Doc. 32, Exh. 2, ¶ 7; Doc. 32, Exh. 3, ¶ 3; Doc. 37, ¶ 15. The fight on January 17, 2017 was the first and only violent encounter between Jones and Millbrooks. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 2-3; Doc. 32, Exh. 2, ¶ 6.

21. Prior to the altercation with Millbrooks, Jones did not inform Defendants Seals, Kendall, or Lucas that he believed his personal safety was at risk in the JCDC, for any reason, much less that Jones believed Millbrooks posed a risk to his personal safety. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 3; Doc. 32, Exh. 2, ¶ 8; Doc. 32, Exh. 3, ¶ 4; Doc. 37, ¶ 16.

22. At no time prior to the altercation on January 17, 2017, did Jones make a request to Defendants (or any other JCDC staff member) to place Millbrooks on his enemy alert list. Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 3; Doc. 32, Exh. 2, ¶ 8; Doc. 32, Exh. 3, ¶ 4; Doc. 37, ¶ 16.

23. After the fight, Jones's only complaint was back pain. Doc. 37, ¶ 20.

24. The next day, January 18, 2017, the JCDC medical care provider examined Jones and gave him a script for 24 hours of cold compresses (ice packs) and over-the-counter ibuprofen for 7 days. Jones stopped taking the ibuprofen after 4 days. Doc. 37, ¶ 20; Doc. 32, Exh. 1 at 17.

IV. Discussion

A. Official Capacity Claims

Jones seeks monetary damages from each Defendant, in both their "offici...