Thornton v. Jackson

998 F.Supp.2d 1365

Christopher M. THORNTON and Tiffany Thornton, Plaintiffs,

v.Theodore JACKSON, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:13–cv–248–TCB.

United States District Court,

N.D. Georgia,

Atlanta Division.

Feb. 21, 2014.

Ethenia F. King, The Firm for Justice & Liberty, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs.

Larry Wayne Ramsey, Jr., Steven E. Rosenberg, Walter B. Yarbrough, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment [49].

I. Procedural Issues

Before addressing the merits of Defendants' motion, the Court must address procedural issues created by Plaintiffs Christopher and Tiffany Thornton's brief in opposition to Defendants' motion.

A. Format of Brief and Page Limit

Local Rule 5.1(C)(2) requires briefs to be “double-spaced between lines.” Although counsel for the Thorntons certifies at the end of the brief that the brief complies with this rule, it does not. At best, the brief has 1.5 spacing. In addition, the improperly spaced brief is twenty-nine pages long, and if properly spaced, the brief would be closer to forty pages. This exceeds the twenty-five-page page limit imposed by Local Rule 7.1(D), and the Thorntons did not seek prior permission from the Court to exceed the page limit as required.

In their reply brief, Defendants notified the Thorntons of the page-limit issue, and they asked the Court to disregard the excess pages of the Thorntons' opposition brief. Doing so would result in the Court's disregarding the Thorntons' arguments in support of (1) their claims against Defendants Fulton County Sheriff's Office, Fulton County jail, and Fulton County Board of Commissioners, and (2) Tiffany's alleged state-law claim for loss of consortium.¹ Without the Thorntons' arguments in support of these claims, the Court would have to deem the claims abandoned. See Dees v. Hyundai Motor Mfg. Ala., LLC, 605 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1226 (M.D.Ala.2009) (A “complete omission of the claim in response to summary judgment is sufficient for a finding of abandonment.”).

Even though Defendants raised the page-limit issue in their reply brief, the Thorntons did not seek permission from the Court to respond to Defendants' reply brief or leave to fix their opposition brief. Local Rule 7.1(F) provides that the Court “in its discretion, may decline to consider any motion or brief that fails to conform to the requirements of these rules.” Thus, the Court will not consider the portions the Thorntons' opposition brief that Defendants argued should be excluded.²

B. Statement of Facts

Defendants filed with their motion a separate statement of material facts. While the Thorntons did file a brief in opposition to the motion, they did not file a response to Defendants' statement of facts as required by Local Rule 56.1(B)(2)(a). Pursuant to L.R. 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2), this failure carries with it serious consequences:

This Court will deem each of the movant's facts as admitted unless the respondent: (i) directly refutes the movant's fact with concise responses supported by specific citations to evidence (including page or paragraph number); (ii) states a valid objection to the admissibility of the movant's fact; or (iii) points out that the movant's citation does not support the movant's fact or that the movant's fact is not material or otherwise has failed to comply with the provisions set out in L.R. 56.1(B)(1).

By failing to file a separate response to Defendants' statement of facts, the Thorntons have failed to dispute any of Defendants' facts.

The Thorntons did include their own statement of facts at the beginning of their opposition brief. However, this statement is not a substitute for a response. And the inclusion of the facts within the brief does not comply with L.R. 56.1(B)(1) & (2). Defendants pointed out the Thorntons' factual deficiencies in their reply brief, and again the Thorntons did not seek leave from the Court to correct or explain their mistakes.

Consequently, the Court does not consider the facts the Thorntons included in their opposition brief, L.R. 56.1(B)(1)(d), and the Court deems admitted all of the admissible facts set forth in Defendants' statement of facts, Brandon v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Sys., 393 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1347–48 (N.D.Ga.2005); see also Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1268 (11th Cir.2008) (“The proper course in applying Local Rule 56.1 at the summary judgment stage is for a district court to disregard or ignore evidence relied on by the respondent—but not cited in its response to the movant's statement of undisputed facts—that yields facts contrary to those listed in the movant's statement.”); Postell v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 512 Fed.Appx. 977, 981 (11th Cir.2013) (district court properly deemed defendant's facts admitted where plaintiff failed to file response to statement of undisputed facts).

“This procedural error by [the Thorntons], however, does not affect the analysis of [Defendants'] motion. Rather, it merely provides the court an expedient method to cut away the superfluous and irrelevant facts presented by [the Thorntons] in [their] unresponsive submission.” Robinson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 1:06–cv–2601–RLV, 2007 WL 3484743, at *1 n. 2 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 14, 2007). Defendants must still show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), and that their motion is supported by the evidence submitted, United States v. 5800 SW 74th Avenue, 363 F.3d 1099, 1101–02 (11th Cir.2004). The undisputed, material facts are set forth below.

II. Background

In 2008, Gabriel Banks, an assistant district attorney with the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, prosecuted Christopher Thornton for armed robbery. Christopher was a member of a criminal street gang called the International Robbing Crew (“IRC”), which was formed by residents of New Orleans who relocated to Atlanta after Hurricane Katrina occurred in August 2005. Christopher pled guilty to a reduced count of robbery and was sentenced to three years' incarceration.

In January 2011, Christopher was serving his sentence in Dooly State Prison, which is located in Unadilla, Georgia. As a condition of his sentence, Christopher agreed to testify as an eyewitness in a murder case against George Keon Redding, another member of the IRC. On January 14, 2011, the Superior Court of Fulton County ordered that Christopher be temporarily housed at the Fulton County jail so that he could testify as a material witness at Redding's trial.

On January 20, 2011, Christopher arrived at the jail. On January 24, the superior court issued an order that directed Christopher be kept separate from only fellow inmate Rayshawn Wheeler.³ On January 27, Christopher was taken to the courthouse to testify. He did not actually testify and was returned to the jail that afternoon. Upon his return, Christopher was assigned to zone 6, south 600, cell 615.

When Christopher was returned to the jail on the afternoon of January 27, he told Defendant David Wells, who is a sheriff's deputy at the jail, that fellow inmates might plot to assault him. Wells then informed Defendant Nayman Taylor, also a sheriff's deputy at the jail, what Christopher said. Taylor then met with Christopher, and when he exited the meeting, Christopher stated that Taylor would call the jail's classification department.

After her meeting with Christopher, Taylor contacted Defendant Veronica Ellison, who was handling the jail's inmate classification the afternoon of January 27, and informed Ellison that Christopher was testifying in a murder trial and wanted to be moved because of fear for his safety. Taylor asked Ellison if Christopher could be moved to protected custody; Ellison responded that she was aware that Christopher was testifying and that cell 615 was the best location and there was no better place to which he could be moved.

When Taylor repeated her request that Christopher be moved to protected custody, Ellison insisted that he could not be moved. At the time of Taylor's request, there were ten to twelve inmates who were testifying in the Redding trial and who had to be kept separate from each other, i.e., housed on different floors, zones and dorms throughout the jail. This apparently limited where Christopher could be moved.

Typically, if a jail official sought to have an inmate reclassified or moved, the official had to submit a cell-change slip and a report of the threat against the inmate. The official had to investigate the threat, draft a report, and submit the report and cell-change slip to the watch commander. The watch commander would review the documents, and if he approved the cell change he would inform the classification department, which would then relocate the inmate. Both the watch commander and the classification staff had to sign the cell-change slip. According to Ellison, if this procedure had been followed, she would have moved Christopher to a different location.

On January 27, 2011, at approximately 10:25 p.m., Christopher was assaulted in his cell by three other inmates: Ramel Brown, Kendarius Glover and Lavance Taylor. All three inmates were charged with the attack and prosecuted by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.

On January 23, 2013, the Thorntons filed this action. Plaintiff Tiffany Thornton is Christopher's wife. The Thorntons aver various 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for Eighth Amendment violations as well as state-law claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also seek attorney's fees.

The Thorntons named twelve individual Defendants in their official and individual capacities:

1. Theodore Jackson, Fulton County Sheriff

2. Col. Mark Adger, chief jailer

3. Lt. Col. Stanley Crawford, assistant chief jailer

4. Lt. Col. Reginald Turner, assistant chief jailer

5. Sgt. Veronica Ellison, employee of the Fulton County Sheriff's office and the jail

6. Sgt. Nayman Taylor, employee of...