Taylor v. Lindamoon

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The referral to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN. For the reasons set out below, Cherry Lindamood's and Hank B. Inman's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED. All other pending motions (Doc. Nos. 55, 58) are DENIED AS MOOT.

         I. Statement of the Case

         A. Factual History ^[1]

         Laronno Taylor is currently incarcerated at the Northeast Correctional Complex. (Doc. No. 60.) During the times relevant to this action, Taylor was an inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF). (Doc. No. 50, PageID# 314-15, ¶ 1.) Lindamood was SCCF's Warden, and Inman was SCCF's Security Threat Group Coordinator. (Id., ¶¶ 2-3.)

         Taylor's claims arise out of two physical altercations that took place among members of the Vice Lords, including Taylor, on February 18, 2016, and March 7, 2016.^[2] (Id. at PageID# 315, ¶ 4, 321, ¶ 47; Doc. No. 62, PageID# 454, ¶ 17.) The February 18 altercation took place in the SCCF Apollo Pod and began “suddenly and without warning.” (Doc. No. 50, PageID# 317, ¶ 23.) Taylor was charged with disciplinary infractions for fighting, possessing a deadly weapon, and security threat group activity, to which he pleaded guilty. (Id. at PageID# 318-20, ¶¶ 26, 27, 31, 32, 36, 37.) Taylor was then placed in punitive segregation. (Id. at PageID# 318, ¶ 30.) Taylor states that there was a nationwide feud going on between the two Vice Lord factions and that he had told Inman that there “would be a war” if he were placed back into population with the same inmates. (Id. at PageID# 329, ¶¶ 97, 98.) Taylor did not ask to be put in protective custody after the altercation, although Taylor states that Inman “knew what was going on as the issue was widespread.” (Id. at PageID# 320, ¶¶ 41, 44.)

         Taylor was released from punitive segregation on March 7, 2016. (Id. at PageID# 321, ¶ 46.) Later that day, ten inmates, including Taylor, were involved in a physical altercation in the SCCF dining hall. (Id., ¶ 47.) Taylor states that he was “ambushed and stabbed . . . [while] only trying to protect himself.” (Id. at PageID# 322, ¶ 49.) Taylor was again charged with disciplinary infractions for fighting, possessing a deadly weapon, and security threat group activity, to which he again pleaded guilty. (Id. at PageID# 326-28, ¶¶ 79, 80, 84, 85, 89, 90.) Taylor states that Defendants knew of the risk to his safety and were deliberately indifferent to it. (Id. at PageID# 329-30, ¶¶ 96, 97, 106.) Defendants state that they did not have any reason to know that the March 7, 2016 altercation would occur. (Id. at PageID# 329-30, ¶¶ 101-06.)

         SCCF follows Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) policy with respect to inmate grievances. (Id. at PageID# 331-32, ¶ 113.) Upon arrival at SCCF, each inmate receives an inmate handbook with the grievance procedure, which permits “inmates to submit a written complaint/grievance concerning the substance or application of a written or unwritten policy or practice, any single behavior or action toward an inmate by staff or other inmates, or any condition or incident within SCCF, which personally affects the inmates.” (Id. ¶¶ 113-14.) This policy requires an inmate to submit a grievance within “seven calendar days of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance.” (Id. at PageID# 332, ¶ 115.) A grievance may be returned as “inappropriate” if the grievance relates to institutional placement, classification, or security threat group placement, and an inmate may appeal the grievance's designation as inappropriate or refile an “appropriate” grievance. (Id. ¶¶ 117-18.)

         SCCF maintains records of all properly filed inmate grievances through the Tennessee Offender Management Information System (TOMIS). (Id. at PageID# 333, ¶ 120.) TOMIS records show that Taylor filed one grievance that was received on April 6, 2016, and no other grievances concerning the facts alleged in his complaint while incarcerated at SCCF. (Id. at PageID# 333-34, ¶¶ 122-23.) The April 6 grievance was deemed inappropriate because it was untimely and involved a disciplinary matter. (Id. at PageID# 334, ¶¶ 126-27.) Taylor agrees that his “last grievance” was deemed untimely but states that “the first 2 [were] never answered.” (Id., ¶ 126.) In apparent conflict with that statement, Taylor also states it is “undisputed” that he filed no grievances other than the April 6 grievance concerning these incidents. (Id., ¶ 128.)

         B. Procedural History

         Taylor filed this action on June 20, 2016, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights arising out of the February and March altercations. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 17, 2016, Lindamood and Inman filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 31), accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law (Doc. No. 32) and statement of undisputed material facts (Doc. No. 33), as well as declarations from Lindamood (Doc. No. 35), Inman (Doc. No. 36), and Leigh Staggs, SCCF's Grievance Chairperson (Doc. No. 34). Taylor has filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 50) to which Defendants filed a reply (Doc. No. 51).

         Taylor filed a motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2017 (Doc. No. 58), accompanied by a memorandum of law (Doc. No. 59), statement of undisputed material facts (id. at PageID# 377-85), and declarations from inmate Christopher Taylor (id. at PageID# 386-87) and Taylor (id. at PageID# 388-92). Defendants have responded in opposition. (Doc. Nos. 61, 62.)

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment shall be granted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). To prevail, the moving party must prove the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to any essential element of the opposing party's claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cty., Tenn., 819 F.3d 834, 847 (6th Cir. 2016). In determining whether the moving party has met its burden, a court must view the factual evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Stiles, 819 F.3d at 848. A court must not weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matters asserted ...