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.

Cox v. Allen

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

April 18, 2019

RANCE L. COX PLAINTIFF
v.
DANNY ALLEN et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOSEPH H. MCKINLEY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This matter is before the Court upon a motion by Defendants for summary judgment (DN 20). Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be denied.

         I.

         Pro se Plaintiff Rance L. Cox initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action by filing a complaint, and then an amended complaint, both signed under penalty of perjury (DNs 1 & 9). In these pleadings, Plaintiff states that, when he was a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Hardin County Detention Center (HCDC), he was attacked by another inmate. In the complaint, he specifically writes as follows:

On February 26, 2018, I [] was assaulted in my protective custody cell by [] a state inmate over a roll of toilet tissue! . . . I was beaten in head, hit in the face, slammed to the ground and kicked! It took medical 4 dazes to see me and only gave me Ibeprofen for the pain in my middle lower back that I still am suffering from! [Defendant] Reynolds had photos taken of my torn shirt, back, right side of face and [the other inmate's] fingernail he lost while beaten me.

         In his amended complaint, Plaintiff continues:

I am housed in a seg. unit along with medical inmates and seg. inmates! The medical inmate has a state inmate watching him, he is the one who attacked me after my shower! [Defendants] are at fault for not housing the medical inmate . . . where he belonged. If he had been there the state inmate would never had have been able to try and steal my toilet paper and then assault me when I said no to him! Me being in P/C in seg. and getting beaten up [is the fault of] Defendants Allen and Reynolds.

         Based upon these allegations, the Court allowed Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claims to proceed against HCDC Jailer Danny Allen and “Lt. Reynolds” in both their official and individual capacities.

         II.

         Before the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and identifying that portion of the record that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

         Assuming the moving party satisfies its burden of production, the nonmovant “must-by deposition, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file-show specific facts that reveal a genuine issue for trial.” Laster v. City of Kalamazoo, 746 F.3d 714, 726 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). Statements in a verified complaint that are based on personal knowledge may function as the equivalent of affidavit statements for purposes of summary judgment. Weberg v. Franks, 229 F.3d 514, 526 n.13 (6th Cir. 2000); Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d 901, 905 (6th Cir. 1992). “The pivotal question is whether the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a jury question as to each element in the case.” Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996). The evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the Court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

         III.

         Section 1983 creates no substantive rights, but merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. Flint ex rel. Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001). Two elements are required to state a claim under § 1983. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). “A plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “Absent either element, a section 1983 claim will not lie.” Christy v. Randlett, 932 F.2d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1991).

         A. ...


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.