Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dickey v. Rapier

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

December 18, 2018

TRAVIS G. DICKEY Plaintiff
v.
JOE RAPIER Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          REBECCA GRADY JENNINGS, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (DN 48) filed by Defendant Joe Rapier. Plaintiff has responded, and Defendant has replied. The motion is thus ripe for consideration.

         First, however, the Court considers Plaintiff's motion (DN 60) titled, “Motion Requesting to Give Response to Defendants' Reply to My Summary Judgment Response.” Such an additional filing would be considered a sur-reply. Plaintiff does not attach a proposed sur-reply, but does lay out several arguments.

         In response (DN 61), Defendant argues that Plaintiff's request to file a sur-reply should be denied. Defendant argues that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for filing a sur-reply; Plaintiff had ample opportunity to respond to the summary-judgment motion; sur-replies are disfavored; and the proposed sur-reply does not address new arguments or evidence but instead merely accuses Defendant and other Bullitt County Detention Center employees of lying.

         Whether to permit a party to file a sur-reply is a matter left to the trial court's discretion. See Key v. Shelby Cty., 551 Fed.Appx. 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2014); Eng'g Mfg. Servs., LLC v. Ashton, 387 Fed.Appx. 575, 583 (6th Cir. 2010); Tanielian v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 108 Fed.Appx. 386, 387 (6th Cir. 2004). “The Sixth Circuit has held that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a sur-reply where the opposing party's reply did not raise any new legal arguments or introduce new evidence.” Liberty Legal Found. v. Nat'l Democratic Party of the USA, 875 F.Supp.2d 791, 797 (W.D. Tenn. 2012).

         An examination of Plaintiff's motion does not reveal any new arguments pertinent to the basis on which the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (DN 60) is DENIED.

         The Court now turns to its consideration of the motion for summary judgment (DN 48) filed by Defendant, Plaintiff's response thereto (DN 58), and Defendant's reply (DN 59).

         I. FACTS

         Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that on May 26, 2016, he was booked into the Bullitt County Detention Center (BCDC). On initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed Plaintiff's claim that he was strip searched on that date in violation of his constitutional rights to go forward against Defendant Rapier in his individual capacity. The Court also allowed his retaliation claim to go forward against Defendant Rapier in his individual capacity for placing him in segregation on July 12, 2016. All other claims were dismissed.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Summary judgment is proper “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 party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

         The moving party's burden may be discharged by demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party's case for which he or she has the burden of proof. Id. A moving party with the burden of proof who seeks summary judgment faces a “substantially higher hurdle.” Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 561 (6th Cir. 2002). “[W]here the moving party has the burden -- the plaintiff on a claim for relief or the defendant on an affirmative defense -- his showing must be sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). The party with the burden of proof “must show that the record contains evidence satisfying the burden of persuasion and that the evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it.” Arnett, 281 F.3d at 561. “Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of persuasion ‘is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible to different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact.'” Green v. Tudor, 685 F.Supp.2d 678, 685 (W.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999)).

         A. Exhaustion of administrative remedies

         Defendant first argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.