Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Eddins v. Powell

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

May 1, 2019


          Anthony Antonio Eddins, Pro Se


          Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court On motion by Defendants, Carrie Powell, Molly Niemi, and Kevin Horton, for summary judgment. (R. 49). Plaintiff, Anthony Antonio Eddins, has not responded and the time to do so has passed. This matter is ripe for review, and for the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.


         Plaintiff Eddins brings this action concerning his previous incarceration at Fulton County Detention Center (“FCDC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated when FCDC employees failed to perform their supervisory duties. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that FCDC employees allowed other inmates to assault him and failed to provide a safe and secure monitored environment.

         Plaintiff claims that he was assaulted by other inmates on March 3, 2017. (R. 10). Plaintiff further alleges that it was Kevin Horton's responsibility to do hourly safety checks during the time period the assault occurred, that it was Molly Niemi's responsibility to make sure Horton performed his checks, and that it was Carrie Powell's duty to ensure that Niemi fulfills her responsibilities. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that:

finally around 2:00 am deputy [Horton] finally arrived to do a safety check finding 3 assaulted inmates, very destraut, brusied, and bleeding after being removed from the cell we where placed in the hall way by deputy [Horton] until the supervisor Ms Niemi arrived. When Ms. Niemi arrived she tried to force us into the joining cell #205. We refused to go and where threatened with being placed in isolation until we started complaining about our injuries ounce shift supervisor Niemi realized that inmate Allen was bleeding from an open wond above his eye, we was taken off the 200 block to the deputy station between 100 block and 200 block where our injuries where photo graphed on deputy [Horton's] body camera. They took inmate Allen to the hospital and when I asked for medical assistance they refused to take me to the hospital with inmate Allen (I also feel that my constitutional rights where violated for failer to receive adaguate medical attention (which is directly both deputy [Horton] and also shift supervisor Niemi fault). . . .

(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide him with medical attention or investigate the incident. (Id.).

         FCDC policy provides inmates with an internal administrative grievance process. (R. 49-13). The policy provides:

Any inmate shall be allowed to file a grievance at such time as the inmate believes he or she has been subject to abuse, harassment, abridgement of civil rights, or denied privileges specified in the posted rules (Grievance must be restricted to incidents which occur while the prisoner is in the custody of the facility). No. prisoner shall fear against reprisal for initiating grievance procedures in an attempt to resolve legitimate complaints.

(R. 49-13 at 1). The FCDC policy and procedures also provide rules for how a grievance must be made, grievance content requirements, and provides for an internal administrative appeals process. (Id.). Plaintiff signed his civil complaint on March 9, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that he filed grievances on March 4 and March 9, 2017. (R. 10 at 7). There is no evidence on the record that Plaintiff completed FCDC's internal administrative appeals process.

         Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on October 12, 2018. (R. 49). On March 19, 2019, this Court issued an order pursuant to United States v. Ninety-Three Firearms, 330 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003) providing Plaintiff with guidance in responding to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to respond. Those thirty days have now passed and Plaintiff has chosen not to respond.


         Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists where “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court “may not make credibility determinations nor weigh the evidence when determining whether an issue of fact remains for trial.” Laster v. City of Kalamazoo,746 F.3d 714, 726 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Logan v. Denny's, Inc.,259 F.3d 558, 556 (6th Cir. 2001); Ahlers v. Schebil,188 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir. 1999)). “The ultimate question is ‘whether the evidence presents 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.