United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
RANCE L. COX PLAINTIFF
DANNY ALLEN et al. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. MCKINLEY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).