United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
B. Russell Judge
matter comes before the Court upon Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants Bill Adams and Tonya Ray. (R.
35). Defendant Benjamin D. Green joins the Motion. (R. 36).
The Plaintiffs, Ben Comer and David Counsil have repsonded.
(R. 38). The matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons
that follow, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,
(R. 35), is HEREBY DENIED.
Plaintiff, David Counsil, was attacked twice while
incarcerated at McCracken County Detention Center. (R. 1). On
October 2016, other inmates attacked Counsil, allegedly
breaking his jaw, knotting his head, and knocking out a
tooth. (Id.). Counsil was attacked again sometime
between February 16 and 22, 2017 upon being placed back in
general population. (Id.). Counsil claims he
suffered another broken tooth. He also claims he was not
provided any medical assistance, even though guards witnessed
the attack. (Id.).
January 26, 2018 the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
(Id.). They claim that Defendants violated their
Eighth Amendment rights when they allegedly failed to protect
them from physical attacks and delayed in providing medical
care following such attacks. Plaintiffs also bring claims
under Kentucky state law for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, failure to train and failure to
supervise. (Id.). Responding to interrogatories,
Counsil stated that he was denied medical treatment for
injuries sustained during an inmate on inmate attack which
occurred prior to October 20, 2016. (R. 35, Ex. A).
Defendants now move for summary judgment on all the
Plaintiffs' claims. (R. 35).
judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "[N]ot every
issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a genuine
issue of material fact." Street v. J.C. Bradford
& Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir. 1989). The test
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 plaintiff must present more than a mere scintilla of
evidence in support of her position; she must present
evidence on which the trier of fact could reasonably find for
her. Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202
(1986)). Mere speculation will not suffice to defeat a motion
for summary judgment: "[T]he mere existence of a
colorable factual dispute will not defeat a properly
supported motion for summary judgment. A genuine dispute
between the parties on an issue of material fact must exist
to render summary judgment inappropriate." Monette
v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173, 1177 (6th Cir.
1996), abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. Humboldt
Acquisition Corp., Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012).
Defendants originally argued that they were entitled to
summary judgment on all Plaintiffs' claims because they
were barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs
responded that their claims are based on the second attack,
occurring in 2017, and that the Complaint described the 2016
events only to demonstrate the pattern of misconduct engaged
in and/or permitted by Defendants. Thus, their claims are
timely. The Defendants conceded that to the extent the claims
relate to the 2017 attack, and not the 2016 attack, they are
Plaintiffs' federal and state claims are governed by
one-year statutes of limitations. McSurely v.
Hutchison, 823 F.2d 1002 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,
485 U.S. 934 (1988) (finding that Section 1983 claims are
governed by a one year statute of limitations in Kentucky);
see also, Coate v. Montgomery County, Ky., No.
99-6123, 2000 WL 1648131, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2000);
Martinez v. Hiland, 5:13-CV-P182-GNS, 2017 WL
1540396, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 25, 2017); Ham v. Marshall
Cty., No. 5:11-CV-11, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167925, at
*9-10, 2012 WL 5930148 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 27, 2012) (holding
negligent supervision claim barred by Kentucky's one-year
statute of limitations); A.R. ex rel. M.R. v. Fayette
County Bd. of Educ., 2004-CA-002377-ME, 2007 WL 127775,
at *4, n. 20 (Ky. App. Jan. 19, 2007) (“A negligent
supervision tort claim is governed by the one-year
limitations period in KRS 413.140(1)(a).”). Plaintiffs
filed their Complaint on January 26, 2018. The second attack
occurred in February of 2017. Thus, to the extent the
Plaintiffs' claims relate to the 2017 attack, they are
timely. Therefore, the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on all Platiniffs' claims is denied.
the Court notes that Plaintiffs' claims are only
permitted to proceed to the extent they directly relate to
the 2017 attack. Accordingly, Counsil will not be permitted
to seek damages for facial bruising and swelling, knots on
his head, missing teeth, and a purported fractured jaw that
resulted from the 2016 attack.
reasons set above, and being otherwise sufficiently advised,
the Court HEREBY DENIES the Defendants' Motion ...