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.

Hensley v. Bossio

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland

October 28, 2019

DANNY RAY HENSLEY, Administrator of the Estate of Danny Oscar Hensley, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HEATHER BOSSIO, et al, DEFENDANTS.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HENRY R. WILHOIT. JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Charles Wilkerson's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 52]. The matter has been fully briefed by the parties [Docket Nos. 54 and 55]. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Defendant Charles Wilkerson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

         I.

         Danny Oscar Hensley died while he was incarcerated at the Little Sandy Correctional Complex ("LSCC"). He was beaten, sexually assaulted and strangled to death by another inmate, Randy Bowman.

         On the day of the murder, Bowman and Hensley entered Bowman's cell on the second floor of the dorm, in violation of the LSCC's rules. [Amended Complaint, Docket No. 25 at ¶ 43 and Deposition of Heather Bossio, Docket No. 54-5, p. 56]. Also in violation of LSCC's rules, after entering Bowman's cell, one of them placed a towel over most of the cell door window. Id. at ¶ 45.

         At some point while they were in Bowman's cell, Bowman assaulted Hensley. He caused numerous cuts to Hensley's head and face, and ultimately, Bowman strangled him. Id. at ¶ 53.

         Eventually, Bowman told Defendant Derek Maggard, a corrections officer, that an inmate was dead in his cell. In response, Maggard and another corrections officer, Defendant Andrew Hayes, went to Bowman's cell. Id. at ¶ 70. When Maggard and Hayes arrived at the cell, Hensley was lying naked, face down on the cell floor. Id. at ¶ 72. Hayes checked Hensley's pulse, but found none. Id. at ¶ 73. Officers transported Hensley to St. Clair Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. Id. at ¶ 74.

         On November 28, 2016, Bowman plead guilty to the murder of Hensley and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Bowman, 16-CR-00037, Elliot County Circuit Court.

         Danny Ray Hensley, Hensley's father, filed this action against Defendants Heather Bossio and Holly Finch. At the time of Hensley's murder, Heather Bossio was a Classification and Treatment Officer at LSCC and Holly Finch was a supervisor at LSCC. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.[1" name="FN1" id="FN1">1]

         The Complaint was subsequently amended, upon Plaintiffs motion, to add additional Defendants who were on duty at LSCC on the day of Hensley's murder as well as Charles Dickerson, the Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") Coordinator for Kentucky Department of Corrections. Id. at ¶ 12.

         There are no allegations that are specific to Wilkerson. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that all the Defendants violated Hensley's Eighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Hensley, or in the alternative that he made an intentional decision to place Hensley at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants are liable in tort for Hensley's death.

         Defendant Wilkerson seeks summary judgment as to all claims alleged against him.

         II.

         In 1986, the United States Supreme Court set forth the standard for summary judgment in a trilogy of cases: Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505');">106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), Celotex v. Cartett, 477 U.S. 317. 106 S.Ct. 2548');">106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,5 U.S. 574');">475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348');">106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Following this precedent and Fed.R, Civ.P. 56(c), the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when "[t]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact." Summary judgment is mandated against a party who has failed to establish an essential element of his or her case ...


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.