Lonewolf v. Garrett et al, No. 5:2018cv00004 - Document 55 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 5/7/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DISX O UR' F AT ROANOKE,VA FILED MAt 2 2 2215 IN T H E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIV JULA .DUDLEXCLERK H ARRISO N BU RG D IW SION K JOHN E.LON EW OLF, Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.5:18cv00004 V. SGT .STEVE GARRETT, By:H on.M ichaelF.U tbansld ChiefUnited StatesDisttictJudge D efendant M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Pendingin thiscaseareD efendantSteveG arrett'sm oéonsforsancdons,forsum m ary N$ . judgment,and to deem therequestsforadmissionsaclmitted.ECF Nos.26,28,50.Pbintiff John Lonewolfhaszesponded and a hearing washeld in thematteron April10,2019.As discussedmorefullybelow,thecourt(1)deniesthemodon forsllmmaryjudgmentbecause oftheexistenceofdisputedissuesofmaterialfact;(2)grantsthemodon forsanctionstothe exientthatanyevidencerequestedandnotprovidedwillnotbeadnzittedatttial;(3)awards monetary sanctions;and (4) grants in part and denies in partthe request to deem the adrnissionsadnnitted. BACKGRO U N D 1. PlaintifpsAllegations Lonewolf v. Garrett et al Doc. 55 Lonewolfflled thislawslaiton January 5,2018,alleging deliberateindifference to llis health andsafetyby defendantsSteveGarrettandJohn lliggins.PlaintiffenyeredRockbridge RegionalJailrflkockbridge?) on October30,2012 to serveasentenceforadt'ugoffense.He Dockets.Justia.com had been convicted in 1991ofaggravated sexualassaultofa child and wasrequited to register asa sex offendez. Lonew olfw asptocessedinto custodybydefendantG attett,who usedLonew olf'sbirth nameofEarlWilliam Giger.W henLonewolfprotestedthathehadchanged hisnametoJohn EarlLonewolfin April2012,G arrettbecam eangc and refused to use Lonew olf's new nam e. . LonewolfassertsthatGarrett,in thepzesenceoftwoferrtzstf'inmates,statedthatLonewolf wasa sex offender. Lonewolfprotested thathe wasafraid forhis safety because the TçTrustf'inmates overheard G azrettm ention llik sex offender stat'us and asked thatG arrettnotplace him in generalpopulaéon.G arrea refused the request,stating thatLonewolfhad been incarcetated in theRockbridgegeneralpopulation beforewithoutany problem s. Lonewolfwasassigned to the same cellblock asJoelCopper.ln July 2010,while incarcezated atRockbridge,Coppezhad vidously assaulted inm ateFabian Schlegelbecausehe believed Schlegçlwasachildrapist.D efendantG arrett'swife,also an em ployeeatRockbridge, witnessed the assaultand flled areport. Copper assertshe told defendantG arrettin August2012 thathe did notwantto be housed with achild sexualoffendetbecauseofhisviolentzeacéon to them .Tllree daysbefore Lonewolfwastzansferred to Rockbridge,Copperasked thata presppm ed child sex offenderbe m oved and again told defendantG atrettoflnisviolentdisposidon towardsthem . W ithin houzs of Lonewolf being processed into Rockbridge, Copper leatned of Lonewolf'ssex offenderhistory from otherinm ates.Shortly after8:00 p.m .,Copperentered 2 Lonewolfscellandbtutallyassaultedhim .Dutingtheassakx CoppercalledLonewolfbythe nam e ffl-linger,''ffl-langery''orTfGiger,''and accused him ofbeing achild sex offender. A t approxim ately 9:50 p.m ., gtzards on duty, including defendant G arrett's wife, . cliscovered Lonewolfbately consciousin hiscell.H etold them thatCoppezhad beaten him and he was ttansported to the hospitalem etgency depattm ent.Lonew olf suffered m uléple injmiesto hislefteye,leftocularzidge,leftparietalskull,mandible,palate,spleen,two ribs, leftlung,and intesénes.H ew ashospitalized from the date ofthe assault,O ctober30,2012, untilFebl'uaty2013.Lonewolfcbimsongoingphysicalandmentalinjuries. 1I.ProceduralH istory Lonew olfirtitially fzed this action on O ctobet31,2013 and the pardesconsented to themagistratejudge'sjurisdiction on February24,2014.SeeLonewolfv.Garrett,No.7:13CV-00519 (W.D.Va.'2017)ttheffflrstsuit'l.Following amotion forsummaryjudgmentand an evidentiary hearing on them otion,United StatesM agisttateJudgeRobertBallou entered an ordergrandng summav judgmenton theclnimsagainstI-ligginsand denp'ng summary judgmentasto Garrett. Atthe evidentiary hearing in the fltstsuit,Coppetadnlitted to beadng Lonewolfafter fincling out he had been convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Copper corrobotated Lonew olf'sversion ofe#ents,includingbeadng inm ateSchlegelin 2010,asking G arret'tnotto housellim around child sex offenders,having Garrettim ply to llim thatLonewolfwasachild sex offendez,having other inm ates confitm Lonew olf's convicdon,and beating Lonewolf. Gattett,Lonewolf,Higgins,an1 CandiceBane,amajozatRockbddge,also testified atthe hearing. Shortly before the ttialdate,Gatzettftled a m otion for sanctions asking to exclude cettain evidence because Lonewolfhad nottesponded to discoveryrequests.Lonewolfthen voluntatilydismissedthelawsuhwithoutptejudiceviajointsdpuladon datedJuly6,2017.He fûed theinstantacéon onJanuary5,2018,within thesix-month period allowedbyVa.Code j8.01-229@9(3). D efendants G arrettand H igginsflled am oéon to dislnissin tlliscurrentsuiton M ay 5,2018,towlùch Lonewolfdidnotrespond.A heatingwasheld onJune26,2018.Thecout't dismissed the cllim s against I'liggins on zes 'udicata and collateralestoppel grounds,and disnaissed cllim s againstthe defendants in theiroffcialcapacides.The case wassetfor tdal againstGarrettin hisinclividualcapacity. The new suit w as set for trial on M arch 3-4, 2019. Lonew olf again stonewalled cliscovery,leading Garrettto flleamodonforsanctbnsandmotion forsummaryjudgment on D ecem ber 19,2018. On January 7,2019,a stipulation ofdisrnissalwit. h prejudice,signed by counselfor both Lonewolfand Garrett,wasflled.Lonèwolfcontacted theclerk onJanuary11,2019 by telephone,stadng thathe did notagtee to the stipulaéon ofdisrnissal.The couttattem pted a conferencecallontheissueonlanuary18,2019,butLonewolfclidnotjoin thecall.Thecourt then setashow causehearing forlanuary24,2019in open courtto addressthestipuladon of dismissalwith prejudice. 4 Lonewolfand lzis counseltesdfled attheJanuary 24,2019 heating,and the coutt determinedtovacatethesdpulationofdistnissalwithptejudice,basedonamisunderstanding between Lonewolfand hiscounsel.The couttsetnew deadlinesto zespond to tlaem oéon fot sanctionsandsummatyjudgmentandptovidetesponsestothetequestsforadmissions.The paréesappeared and atgued the presentm otionson A pzil10,2019. D ISCU SSIO N 111.M otion forSanctions Rule37(d)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureprovidesthatacotutmaysancdon a party for faillzre to tespond to requestsfordiscovery.Sancdonsm ay include directing that the m atters em braced in the discovery or other designated factsbe taken as established for purposes ofthe action as the prevailing party cllim s;prohibiting the non-responsive party from suppordng or opposing designated claim sor defenses,or from inttoducing designated m attersinto evidence;striking pleadingsin wholeorin part;staying furtherproceqdingsuntil a ' the orderisobeyed;disnaissing theaction in wholeotin part;orrendering a defaultludgm ent againstthenon-responsiveparty.Fed.R.Civ.P.37$)and (d).In addition,ifapartyfailsto provide Rule 26 disclosates,including theidentificaéon ofwitnesses,theparty isnotallowed tousethatinfotmation orwitnessesto supplyevidenceatsubsequentjroceedings,unlessthe failurewassubstantiallyjusdfiedotisharmless.Fed.R.Civ.P.37(c). Garrett flled a m otion for sancdons on D ecem bet 19,2018,alleging thatLonewolf nevez provided answers to the flrstsetofinterrogatories and failed to provide llis Rule 26 disclosutes.Gazrettasks that the case be distnissed,ot,in the alternative,that allevidence 5 requested butnotproduced be excluded.A fterthe m odon forsancdonswasfzed,Lonewolf tesponded at least in patt to tlae request for adrnissions,'tequests fot ptoducdon, and intertogatories. W hete dismissalis a potentialsancdon,couztshave m ore narzow discredon because (Ttlaeclisttictcokut'sdesireto cnfotce itsdiscovety otdezsisconfzonted head-on bythepatty's tights to a ttialby jury and a faitday in cotttt.7'lMutualFederalSav.And Loan Ass'n v. ltichards& Associates,Inc.,872F.2d 88,92 (4th Cir.1989)(cidngW ilsonv.Volkswa en of America.Inc.,561F.2d494,503-04(4th Cir.1977)).Indecidingamotion forsancdons,courts useafout-parttest:(1)whetherthenoncomplyingpartyactedinbadfaith;(2)theamountof prejudicehisnoncompliancecaused hisadvezsary,which necessarilyincludesan inqut 'ryinto thematerialityoftheevidencehefailed toproduce;(3)theneedfordeterrenceoftheparticular sortofnoncompliance;and(4)theeffecévenessoflessdrasdcsanctions.Wilson,561F.2dat 503-506.The test ensures Ttonly the m ost flagrant case,where the party's noncom pliance represèntsbad fait.h and callousdisregard fottheauthority ofthe clistrictcout'tand the Rules, w. i 1lresultintheextremesanctionofclismissalorjudgmentbydefault.''MutualFederalSav., 872 F.2d at92. 1Nodiscoveryorderwasentered inthiscase,butRule37(d)providesthatthesamesanctionsthatare availablefornotobeying adiscovery orderareavailableforfailure ofaparty to attend itsown deposition orrespondto discoveryrequests.SeeJacksonv.NissanM otorCorp.,888F.2d 1391at*4 (6thCir.1989) (unpublished)(notingthatRule37(d)allowscourtto availitselfofsanctionsotherwiseavailablefor contemptorders). 6 (A)Bad Faith Bad fait.h includeswillfulconduct,where a party cleaily understands its duty to the . courtbutneverthelessdeliberately disregardsit.O ortaznitiesD ev.Grou LLC v.Ancltnxss, No.1:14->-62,2015W L 2089841at*6(E.D.Va.2015).Forexample,in Belkv.Charlotle- M ecklenbtu Bd.OfEduc.,269F.3d305,348(4thCiz.2001),theFourthCircuitfoundample evidenceofbad faith when a pattyw astold to supplem entitsanswersto intettogatotieswhen such inform ation becam e known,butfailed to do so.A san excuse foruntim ely disclosure of factwitnesses,tlw partyrelied on theclistrictcourt'spretrialorderthatpartieswere to provide awitnesslistto the courton the fustday oftrial.The disttictcotzrtfound thatthe provision ofthe pzetrialorder was clearly for the convenience ofthe courtand could notreasonably havebeen interpreted to apply to disclosuresto the otherparties. Lonew olfatguesthathe did notactin bad faith becauseheclid eventuallyrespond and has notsoughtto frustzate this litigaéon or the discovery process,and,except for m edical records,thevastmajorityofwhathetendered to Gartettwasinfo= ation alreadyin Garrett's possession.G arrett points outthatLonewolf was silentafter being sew ed w1:. 14 discoyery requests and was silentin response to the m oéon for sanctions and m odon for sum m ary judgmentuntilthecouttorderedhim torespond. The cotzrtfinds evidence ofbad faith on Lonewolf'spartin fsiling to zespond to the discoveryrequestsand only doing so after hefaced the thteatofsanctions.H owever,he did provide the discovery in response to the threatofsancéonsand has since com plied wit.h this 7 court's orders, appeared at scheduled hearings, and has not otherwise frustrated the proceedings. (B)Prejudice The rules of discovery are designed to pzeventprejudice due to inadequate ttial pteparadon zathezthan simply to punish obduzacy.W ilson,561 F.2d at504,n.23.A couzt m ustconsiderhow the absence ofthe unproduced evidence im pairsthe other party'sability to establish its case and whether the non-com plying party's conductdeprives the otherparty ofafairttial.Id.at505.In adclition,w asted tim e and attorney'sfeeshavebeen found to be <<a substandallmountofprejudice.''Viswanathanv.ScotlandCountyBd.OfEduc.,165F.R.D. 50,53(M .D.N.C.1995). Garretthasshownprejudicein thathehad to fllethemodon fozsancdonsand attend a hearing.However,hisability to defend tlnislawsuithas notbeen im paited by the late ftling ofthediscoverybecausemostoftheinformationzevealedin discoverywasthe subjectof testim ony attheevidentiaryhearing in the flzstsuit. (C)Deterrence TheSuprem eCourtheld in N at'lH ocke Lea ev.M etro.H ocke Club Inc.,427U .S. 639,643(1976),thatseveresanctionsprovidedbystattzteorrulemustbeavailableto district courtsin appropriate cases,notonly to penalize those w hose conductm ay be deem ed to watranta severe sanction,butalso to detet those who nlightbe tem pted to engage in such conductin the absence ofsuch a deterzent.Lonewolfconcedesthatalthough there is som e history of noncompliance in this case and the & stcase,he has taken steps to respond to 8 discovery.H e clnim s thathe has notdisregarded courtordezs to tender discovery or hold deposidonsand hasheeded allwarningsby the courtwhich carry an expressorim plicitthreat ofdism issal. G arret'tpointsoutthatLonewèlfw holly failed to respond to discoveryrequestsin the fltststétand disnaissed the law suitrather than face discovery sanctions.Lonew olfdid m uch the sam ein thiscase,and only responded to m otionsand the requestsforadnaissionswhen staring down disnnissal with prejudice. Plainly; Lonewolfs discovery intransigence is undeterred. (D)EffectivenessofLessDrasticActions Lonewolfassertsthatafterthelasthearing he provided answersto discovery requests. Garrettcountersthattheresponseswerelate andincom pleteand thatasofFebruary25,2019, Lonewolfhad failed to provide the namesofwitnesses;evidence regarcling injl'ries and dam ages; evidence of G arrett's alleged acts or olnissions supporting Lonewolf's clnim s; evidencerefuting G arrett'safflrm ativedefenses;and evidenceftom orregardingotherinm ates who werepresentwhen he was processed into the prison.G iven thatan evidentiary headng w asheld in thiscase,thatLonewolfhasprovided som e discovery and thatcliscoveryisnow closed,thecourtdoesnotfind thatadrasticaction such asdisnnissalofthelawsuitiswarranted. ln addiéon to considezation of the fouz W ilson factors,Lonewolf argues that the discoveryvioladonsare nàinor,and thatGazret't* 1notbe prejudiced by Lonewolfbeing allow ed to pzesentwhatevidence he can m usterto prove lziscleim .H e arguesthatthedelay in.the zesponse to discovery hasbeen cured and thatthe discovery responses are consistent wit.h the pleadingsand othertestim ony. H aving considered the evidence,argum entofthe parées,the rules,and the relevant case law,thecourtGR AN T S the m odon forsancdonsand ordersthe following sancdons: (1)EvidentiarySanctions Lonew olfwillnotbepe,rm itted to callanywitnessesorpresentanyevidencewhich has notbeen provided in cliscovery orintroduced atthe evidentiary hearing in the fltstsuit. (2)M onetary Sanctions Gazzetthasbeen prejudicedbyhavingtoexpendHmeandeffortandincutattozneys' fees and costs to obtain responses to llis discovery,m ove for sanctions,and attend cout't heazings.Garrettisditected to provide an affidavitordeclaraéon asto theattorneys'feesand costs incurred by Lonewolf's discovery intransigence,which,if reasonable and adequately supported,willbe awarded. IV.M otion to D eem R equestsforAdM ssionsA dm itted G arrettargu 'esthatbecause thezequestsforadmission w ere answered afterthe 30-day deadline fozanswering,they should be deem ed adm itted.Lonew olfdid notrespond to the m otion butdid presentargum entattheA pril10,2019 hearing. Garrett served the fttstrequest for adm issions to Lonew olf on O ctobez 26,2018. Lonewolffailed to respond and on D ecem ber 19,2018 G arrettfûed llism otion forsancdons andmotion fozsummaryjudgment.Followingthehearingheldonlanuary24,2019,Lonewolf responded to therequestforadlnissionson February 7,2019. Requests foz adnaission are deem ed admitted 30 days after being served on a party, unlesstheanswering party servesawritten answerorobjection addtessed to thematter.A shorterorlongertim e m aybe sdpulated to by thepardesorordered by thecourt.Fed.R.Civ. P.36(a)(3).A matteradmittedisconclusivelyestablishedunlessthecourt,onmodon,permits the adrnission to be withdtawn or amended.Fed,R.Civ.P.369$, .Advends,Inc.,v. Consolidated PropertyHoldings,Inc.,124 Fed.Appx.169,173 (4th Cir.2005).A courtmay perm itwithdrawaloram endm entofan adrnission ifitwould prom otethepresentadon ofthe meritsoftheacéonandifwotzldnotprejudicetherequeséngpattyinmaintqiningordefending theactiononthemerits.Fed.R.Civ.P.36q$. A courtcannotsuas ontewithdraw aparty'saHm issions.Ldaat173.Howeveq undez com pelling citcum stances,adistrictcourtm ayallow untim elyrepliesto serveasthe equivalent ofa m otion to withdraw or am end aresponse and theam endm entm ay be allowed when the opposing partysuffered no prejudicebytheamendment.Memath,Inc.v.Modern M edicine, 934F.2d319at*2(4thCir.1991)(unpublished)(cidn Guttin v.FalstaffBrewin Co .,710 F.2d1309,1313(8th Cit.1983))Moosmanv.JosephP.Blit' z,Inc.,358F.2d686,688(2dCiz. 1966)andFrenchv.UnitedStates,416F.2d1149,1152(9thCir.1968)).ForpumosesofRule 369$,Kfprejudiceresultswhereapartyfacesdifficultyinprovingitscasebecauseofafsudden need to obtain evidence requized to pzove the m atlez that had been admitted.'''K ell v. Equifax,Inc.,No.8:12-CV-03095,2013 W L 5954799at*4 O .S.C.2013)(quoting M emath, 934 F.2dat*2).InAcostav.M ezçal,Inc.,No.JKB-17-0931,2018K 4188448at*5 @ .M d. 2018),the district cotzrt commented that reliance on adnlissions in crafdng a summary judgmentmotion doesnotdescribeprejudicesignifcantenough to denywithdrawalofan adm ission.ButseeTrustv.PrestieA na olis LLC,N o.16-00544,2017 W L 3085680 at*5-6 (D.Md.2017)(fndingthatlateadrnissionsweredeemed admitted forpumosesofsummary judgmentbecause the requesdng party had spentconsiderable time and effortcraféng its moéon forpardalsummaryjudgmentandreliedin part'on theunanswezedadmissionsand also because the late-tesponding party had the opporm rlity to see how the otherparty used therequestforadnaissionsin supportofitssummaryjudgmentarguments). H ere,Lonew olfhaspzesented no circllm stances,m uch lesscom pelling ones,on which the couztcould find thathislate responses should serve asa m odon to withdzaw oram end hisresponses.Garzettallegesprejudicein thathereliedon thedeemedaHmissionsinpreparing hismotion forsummaryjudgmentandbecausediscoveryinthiscaseisnow closed,hecannot engage in additionalcliscovery related to thematterswl aich atethesubjectoftheadmissions. . Also,Lonewolfused theunansw ered requests foradnnissionsto puttogetherhisresponse to the moéon for s'ammary judgment.SeeECF No.39 at7.Such factorsweigh in favor of deetning theadm issionsadm itted. O n the other hand,this case is in an unusualprocedutalposttue wit.h regard to the adrnissions because of the evidentiary hearing held in the'flrst suit.lt is clear from the testim ony attheevidentiaryhealing thatLonewolfdoesnotagreewith m any ofthecontested factualasserdons set outin the adnlissions,such as whethez G atrettknew aboutCopper's prior assault ofa sex offender or whether TfTrtzstys''w ere in the area when Lonewolfand G arrettw ere discussing Lonewolf'snam e and sex offenderhistory. 12 In addition,thiscaseonceagainisatthesummaryjudgmentstageand t<gcjolzrtsare pardcularly responsive to allowing late answ ers to requests for adrnission w hen sum m ary judgmentisinvolved....Itdoesnotfurthertheinterestsofjusdceto automadcally determine theissuesofa lawsuitand entersummary judgmentagainstapartybecauseadeadlineis nnissed.''Donovanv.Porter,584F.supp.202,208(D.M d.1984)(internalcitadonsomitted). Seealso Town & CountryProperties,Inc.v.Howell,892 >'.2d 1042 at*2 (4f. h Cir.1989) (unpublished)(findingdistrictcourtdidnotabuseitscliscretionwhenitpermitteddefendants to respond to requestsfor adrnissions eightdays aftertheyw ere due and the opposing party failedtoshow anymaterialprejuclicefrom thedelay);Acosta,2018WL 4188448at*3(tfThe truth-finding funcdon of the federalcoutts is ofpatam ountim portance and this Courtis reluctant to allow the rigid opetation of procedural nzles to 'supplant m erits-based clispositions');andLQCW-,2013WL 5954799at*3(allowinguntimelyanswersisclisctedonary andappropriatewhen doing so would facilitatethezesoluéon ofthecaseon themerits). In this case,the courtfinds thatitisappropriate to allow Lonewolfto withdraw his adtnissionsand substitutehisnew answetsonly to the extenttheyateconsistentwith theptiot evidentiaryhearing testim ony.Itwould beinequitableand inconsistentw1t.11the ttutlwseeldng function of the coutt not to allow late responses to requests for adm ission where those responsesparrotLonewolf'sevidenceatthepriorevidenéary heating.N orwould therebeany prejudice to Garrettto allow Lonewolfto presentevidenceconsistentwit.h thatpresented at the M ay 10,2015 evidentiary hearing.W herethelateresponsesto the requestforadm issions conttadictorseek to add information notpresented atthe slpmmaryjudgmenthearing,they areprejudicialto Garrettnow thatdiscoveryhasclosed.Assuch,thoseresponseswillnotbe allowed. In other words,Lonewolf's m otion for leave to flle late responses to the overdue RequestsforAdnaissionsisD E N IED exceptto the extentthatallowing a late response to a requestto stand would plainly contradictevidence introduced attheM ay 10,2015 hearing.lt would notbein theinterestsofjusticeorpzejudiceGarrettto denyLonewolftheopportunity to presenttheevidenceintroduced atthe M ay 10,2015 hearing. Therefore,the following RequestsforA drnission aredeem ed adm itted:1,2,3,4,6,9, 14,15,16,and 17.Specifically,theserequestsareadm itted becauseLonewolFslateresponses either(a)aclmittherequest:RequestsforAdmission 6,15,and 16;(b)contradicthisprior sworn testimony:Requests forAdnnission,1 and 2;or (c)are based on addiéonalfactsnot introduced orsubjectsnotcovereé attheMay 10,2015hearings:RequestsforAdrnission 3, 4,9,14,and 17. Latezesponsesareperm itted asto Requests forAdmission 5,7,8,10,11,12,and 13 because the subjectofthese adnaissionswere addressed attheM ay 10,2015 evidenéary heazing,and to allow these requeststo be deem ed adm itted by defaultw ould thwart,rather than facilitate,the m erits-based resolution ofthedispute. V.M otion forSum m aryJudgm ent (A)SummaryJudgm entStandard Pursuantto Rule56(a),thecourtmustTfgrantsummaryjudgmentifthemovantshows thatthezeisnogenuineclisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisendtledto judgment asamatterof1aw.?'Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);CelotexCo .v.Catrett,477U.S.317,322(1986)9 Glnnv.EDO Cor .,710F.3d209,213(4thCir.2013).W henmakingtlnisdeternninaéon,the cotzrtshould considerffthepleadings,deposidons,answ ersto interrogatodes,and adrnissions on flle,togetherwith ....ganylaffidavits''flledbytheparées.Celotex,477U.S.at322.W hether a factism aterialdependson the relevantsubstandve law.Anderson v.Liberty Lobby,lnc., 477U.S.242,248 (1986).(fonly disputesoverfactsthatlnightaffecttheoutcomeoftheslzit underthe governing law willproperly precludethe entc ofsummary judgment.Facmal disputesthatareirrelevantorunnecessarywillnotbecounted.''Id.(citationomitted). Them oving patty bearsthe initialburden ofdem onsttadng the absence ofagenuine issue ofm aterialfact.Celotex,477 U.S.at323.lfthatburden hasbeen m et,the non-m oving party m ustthen com e forward and establish the specific m aterialfactsin dispute to stzrvive summaryjudgment.M atsushitaElec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithRadio Co .,475U.S.574,586-87 (1986). In deternliningwhetheragenuineissueofm aterialfactexists,the courtviewsthe facts and dzaws allreasonable infetences in the light m ost favorable to the non-m oving party. G. -lyqn,710F.3d at213(ciéngBondsv.Leavitt,629F.3d 369,380 (4th Cir.2011)).lndeed, . ffgiltis an faxiom thatin tnnling on a motion for summary judgment,the evidence ofthe nonmovantisto bebelieved,and alljustifableinferencesareto be dtawn in hisfavor.''' McAitlaidsInc.v.Ifimberl-clarkCo .756F.3d307,310(4thCir.2014)(internalalteradon ornitted)(citing Tolanv.Cotton,134 S.Ct.1861,1863 (2014)(petcuriaml). 15 Moreover,ffgclredibilitydete= inaéons,theweighingoftheevidence,and thedrawing oflegitimateinferencesfrom thefactsarejut'yfuncdons,notthoseofajudge.''Anderson,477 U .S.at255.Thenon-m oving partym ust,however,ffsetforth specific factsthatgo beyond the fmeze existence ofascinéllaofevidence.'''Glnn,710 F.3d at213 (quoting Anderson,477 U.S.at252).Thenonmovingpartymustshow thatTftheteissufficientevidencefavoring the nonmovingpartyforajurytorettzrnaverdictforthatparty.''Res.BanksharesCo .v.St. PaulMerc lns.Co.,407F.3d631,635(4thCir.2005)(quodngAnderson,477U.S.at249). fflnotherwords,tograntsummaryjudgmentthegclotzrtmustdeterminethatnoreasonable jurycouldfindforthenonmovingpartyontheevidencebeforeit.''M ossv.ParksCo .,985 F.2d 736,738 (4th Cir.1993)(quotingPeriniCo .v.PerirliConstr. Inc.,915F.2d 121,124 (4thCit.1990)).Evenwhenfactsarenotindispute,thecotzrtcannotgrantsllmmaryjudgment unlessthere isfTno genuineissue asto theinferences to be drawn from '?those facts.W orld- W ideI RihtsLtd.P'shi v.CombeInc.,955F.2d242,244 (4th Cit.1992). (B)DeliberateIndifference The Eighth Am endm entim posesaduty on prison officialsto Tfprotectprisonersfrom violenceatthehandsofotherprisoners.''Farmerv.Brennan,511 U.S.825,833 (1994).To establish aj1983clnim fozfailureto protectaninmatefrom violence,theinmatemustshow: (1)thatthe deprivation alleged issufficiently sedousand resulted in a denialoftheminimal civilized measureoflife'snecessitiesand (2)thattheprison officialhad asufhcientlyculpable stateoflnind.Id.at834 (internalquotation marksomitted).A ffsufficiently culpable stateof mind''m eans thata prison officialffm ustb0t. h be aw are of facts from wllich the inference could be draw n that a substanéalrisk of serious hnt'm exists,and he m ustalso draw the inference.''1d.at837. A showingofnegligenceisnotsufficient.Gra sonv.Peed,195F.3d692,695(4thCil. 1999).Thus,an official'sfailuretoalleviateasignificantt'iskthatheshouldhaveperceivedbut clid not,does not describe an Eighth A m endm ent clnim .Farm er,511 U .S.at 838.Stated diffezently,ptison officialsatenotliableiftheyffknew theundetlyingfactsbutbelieved (albeit unsoundly)thattherisk to which the factsgaverisewasinsubstantialornonexistent.Id.at 8449see1kov.Shteve,535F.3d 225,241(4th Cir.2008)(statingthatitwasinsufûcientto show thatadefendantfdshouldhave''recognized asubstantialriskofhatvn). In Danserv.Stansber ,772 F.3d 340 (4th Cir.201$,the Foutth Circuitvacated a clistrictcourt's order fincling a dispute ofm aterialfacts and denying qualihed im munity in a failure to protectcase.D anser,a convicted sex offender,told Boyd,a gtzard,thathewanted to go to theoutside recreation cage.Boyd assigped groupsofinm atesto each recreadon cage based on inm ates'custody levels,the locadon oftheinm ates'cellsin the facitity,and datain a computer-generatedSpecialHousingUnit(ITSHU'A)Report. Boyd placed D anser in an outside recreation cage with three other inm ates,one of whom wasScottG ustin,a prison gang m em ber.D ansetand G usdn had notm etbefore Boyd placed them in the sam e recreation cage,and there were no separation ordersreqlliting that D anser and G ustin be kept apart from each other.N oz did tlle SH U reportm endon that D anserwasa sex offender or that Gusén was in a gang.Boyd could have cliscovered that informadon had he looked in othezprison databases,buthe did not. Instead of supervising the recreadon cages asrequited by llisposidon,Boyd leftllis post, and Gusdn attacked D anser and beat him severely while utteting obsceniées and commentingonDanset'ssex-offenderstattzs.Id.at344.Dansersuffered significantinjlpties. Dansersuedunder42 U.S.C.j1983,arguingthatBoydwasdeliberatelyindiffezentto a substanéalrisk ofharm .Boyd argued to the districtcourtthathe did nothave a culpable state ofnnind because Tfhew asnotawareofany factssuggeséng thatG usdn posed apazticular threatto D anser.''Id.at347.The couttl'uled in D anser's favorand setthe m atter for trial, prim arilybecauseBoyd assigned D anser,aconvicted sex offender,to thesam erecreadon cage asGusén,who wasaknown violentgang member,and becauseDansez'sinjuriesoccurred when Boyd leftthe area unsuperdsed. TheCourtofAppealsreversed,nodng thattherecord failed to show asam atteroflaw thatBoyd knew and disregarded an excessive risk to D anser's health or safety by leaving DanserandGusdntogetherintheunsupervisedrecreadoncage.Id.at348.Thecout'trejected Elanser's argurnent that it Nvas obvious that placùAg Ilanser in a recreadon cage Mdth the assailantand leaving the areaunsupervised would have led tt?an attack.Ldxat348-49.<T o , establish thatarisk is Tobvious'in thislegalcontext,a plaindffgenerally is reqlpited to show that the defendant Thad been exposed to inform adon concerrling risk and thus m ust have known aboutit.'''Ld=( quodng Farmer,511U.S.at842).TheFourth Circuitconcluded that . ffgojn tlaisrecord,thereisno evidencethatBoydwasexposedto suchinfot-madon.''1d. In Odom v.South CarolinaD e at-tmentofCoztecdons,349 F.3d 765 (4th Cir.2003), the Fourth Circuitreversed a distdct court's grant ofsummary judgmentto corzectbnal officers on the question of deliberate indifference.The prisoner,O dom ,told correcdonal ofik ers of llis fear ofparticularinm ates,and the oflk ers saw the inm ates threaten O dom , attem ptto break into O dom 'scell,and goad others to attack O dom .Variousstaffm em bers told theofficersto m oveO dom to safety,buttheofficersallowed theinm atesto attack O dom and said Odom gotwhathe deserved for being a snitch.J-I. L at771.The couttfound that O dom 'suncontradicted sw orn statem entsweresufik ientto show thatdefendantswereaw are ofthe risk ofha= and sim plyignored it.1d. Similarly,inLearyv.Livingston County,528F.3d 438(6thCir.2008),theSixth Circuit affirmed theclistrictcourt'sdenialofacorrecéonalofficer'smotion forslnmmaryjudgment because the recozd established delibezate inclifference.The offcer told the detainee to not discusshispendingcrinlinalchargefotallegedlyrapinganine-year-old 1 1becauseanother inm ate rnightattack him foritand then subsequently told otherinm atesaboutthedetainee's alleged sex offense.The court found that the officer was aw are of facts from which the inference could be drawn thata substandalrisk ofharm existed and drew the inference.H e then didnothing toprotectthedetqineefrom asubstantialriskofharm .Ldxat442. ThefactualbasisforGartett'smoéon forslzmmat'yjudgmentzliesin starkconttastto Lonewolf'sassertions.GarretstatesthatheprocessedLonewolfintothejailon October30, 2012 at approxim ately 10:38 a.m . G arrett was aware of Lonewolf's 1992 sexual assault convicdon and asked lnim ifhe wanted to be placed in segregation.Lonewolfdeclined and 2Garrett'smodon forsummaryjudgmentisbasedontheaffidavitGarrettflleditatheftrstsuit,thedeemed admissions(someofwhich,asdiscussedabove,havebeenwithdrawn),andpordonsofthetestimonyatthe evidendazy heazing. asked to be placed in the generalpopulation.Lonew olfpreviously had been placed in the generalpopulation withoutincident.W hen Lonewolf was being processed,there were no otherinm atesin the areaw ho could have overheard theirdiscussion. G arret'tassigned Lonewolfto Block 525 in generalpopulation butdid notescorthim to hiscelland had no flzrthercontactwith laim .The guardswho w alked Lonewolfto hiscell did not m ake any statem ents to tlae inm ates, othet than to say,fY e have you anothet room m ate.''G arrett'sdecision to place Lonewolfin generalpopkzlation w asapproved by his supetvisorand wasconsistentwith lnisttaining and expedence.Jailrecordsdid notindicate that Copper had assaulted sex offenders on two prior occasions, and G atrett had no knowledgeofthepriorassaultsatthetimeheprocessedLonewolfinto thejail.ln addidon, GarrettdidnotprocessCopperintothejailonAugust18,2012. G arrett disclnim s any knowledge that Copper had previously assaulted a child sex offendez atRockbridge,although there is no apparentdispute that Copper had pzeviously beaten a child sex offenderatRockbridge.G arrettdid notrem em ber the incidentwhen he wasprocessingLonewolfinto thejail.Garrettwasfamiliarenough with Coppertoknow that he had been atRockbridge severaltim es. G arrett'saverm entsserve to highlightthe factazaldisputesin this case.H e stated that he had no knowledge that Copper would likely assatzltLonew olf,in contrast to Copper's testimonythatGarrettbookedhim intothejailand thatCopperrepeatedlyaskedGarrettnot to houselnim with any child sex offenders.Garrettdisputesthathebooked Copperinto jail and subrnitted evidence thathewasnotthebooking ofik et. 20 G arrettdisputesCopper'scllim thathe had m ulépleconversationswith G arrettwhile incarcerated in Rockbddge and ftm ade itvery clear''to G arrett that he did notwantto be housed wit .h child sexualoffenders.Indeed,Copperassertsthatthreedayspriorto Lonewolf beingbookedintothejail,aninmatewithffcrazycharges''wasplacedinhousingwithCopper, who testified thathe told G arrett,ft ook m an,you gotto getm e outofhere ozgetlnim out ofhere.''Copperclnim shetold G artettthathedid notcareiftheyputhim itlsegregadon,but hedid notwantto be housed with ffpeople likethat.'' A lthough contradicted by Garrett's testim ony,Copper testified thatG arrettescorted Lonewolfto the cellblock and said,f<Igotone fozyou-all''and laughed asheputhim in the cell.CopperassertsthatG arrett'scom m entraised suspicionsand inm atesm ade calls outside ofthejailandlearnedofLonewolf'spriozconvictions.W hen Coppetleatnedtlnisinformation, hewentinto Lonewolf'scellto ask him aboutit,and subsequently beatlnim . Atthisstage,the courtisnotperm itted to weigh the credibility ofLonew olf,Coppet, and G arrett,and m ustconstrtze thedisputed factsin thelightm ostfavorable to Lonew olf,the non-m oving party.Given thatG arrett,Copper,and Lonewolftellvery differentstoriesabout thecircum stancesleadingto Lonewolf'sbeadng,genuineissuesofm aterialfactexistthatm ust beresolvedbyajury. In patticulat,ifLonewolfand Copperatebelieved,theittestim ony issufficientto show that Garrett had a Tffsufficiently culpable state ofm indy'namely that he dkngew) of and clisregardgedjan excessiveriskto lonewolf'sqhealth orsafetf''when heassigned Lonewolf to thesame cellblock asCopper.See Danser,772 F.3d at348 (quodng Fnt-mer,511 U.S.at 21 834,837).ln Danser,therecord failed to show asamaiterof1aw thattheguard appreciated thathis actofleaving D anser and the assailanttogether in an unsupervised area created an . exce ssive risk to D anser's safety.H ere,testim ony from Lonewolfand Copper create a fact 1 ; Eluestion on thatissue.3 Considering the evidence in the hghtm ostfavotable to Lonewolf,a genuine issue of m atetial fact exists as to whether G arrett knew housing Lonewolf neat Copper posed an excessive risk to Lonewolf's safety and disregarded thatrisk.Accordingly,the courtis not perrnittedtograntsummaryjudgmenttoGm ettonLonewolf'sEighthAmendmentclnim. (C)Qualified Immunity G atrett argues that even if the court finds thatLonewolf alleged a consdtudonal violaéon,Garrettstillis entz ed to qualified im m unity.The doctdne of qualified im m unity affords protecdon againstindividualliability for civildam ages to officials insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established stattztory or constitutionalrights of which a reasonablepersonwould havelcnown.Pearsonv.Callahan,555U.S.223,231(2009)(quoéng Hatlow v.Fitzgetald,457 U.S.800,818 (1982)).Stated anothezway,tfgqqualified immunity protectsoffcialsTwho com m itconstim donalvioladonsbutw ho,in lightofclearly established law,could reasonably believethattheiractionsw erelaw ftzl.'''Bookerv.South Carolina D e t. 3Evenwithouttheissueofwhetherthefvrusty''inmatesoverheard theconversadon,ajuty couldfmdon thesefactsthatG arrettappreciated thedangerto Lonewolfand took no stepsto alleviateit.SeeD anser,772. -. F.3dat348(Sndingthatarisk isTfobvious''iff hedefendanthasbeen exposed toinformationconceMingthe riskandthusmusthaveknownaboutit)InDanser,theFourthCirctzitpointedoutthattherewasno evidenceitzthezecord thatthe defendantknew thatthepbindffwasasex offenderorthattheassailantwasa gangm em ber.Ld-.at347.Here,itisuncontested thatGarrettknew aboutLonewolf'sstatusand a factissue existsregarding Garrett'sknowledgeofCopper'sviolenthistory and anim ositytoward sex offenders. 22 ofCorrecdons,855F.3d533,537-538(4th Cit.2017)(ciéngHe v.Purnell,652F.3d524, 531 (4th Cir.2011)(en bancl).'tgAllthough aplaintiffmayprove thatan officerhasviolated certain constitudonal rights,the officez nonetheless is enétled to qualified im munity if a reasonable person in the officet's posidon Tcould have failed to appreciate thathis conduct wouldviolatethosetights.''?Meyezsv.BaltimozeCounty,Md.,713 F.3d 723,731(4th Cir. 2013)(quotingTorclninskyv.Siwinski,942F.2d257,261(4thCir.1991)).Thedoctrineweighs the need to hold public ofhcials accountable forirresponsible exercise ofpoweragainstthe need to slnield officials from harassm ent,clistracdon,and liability when they perform their dutiesresponsibly.Booker,855F.3d at538(ciéngPeakson,555U.S at231). In perform ing a qualiûed im m unity analysis,a couttm ustftrstdetetm ine the specihc rightthattheplaintiffallegeswasinfringedbythechallenged conduct.Id.(ciéngWinfieldv. Bass,106 F.3d 525,530 (4th Cir.1997) (en bancl).The courtthen mustask whethera constim tionalvioladon occurred and whetherthe rightviolated wasclearly established atthe timetheofficialviolated it.The queséonsneed notbeaskeditlapardclzlarozder.Id.(ciéng Me1arexrel.Me1azv.Greene,593F.3d348,353(4th Cir.2010)andPearson,555U.S.at 236).Theplaindffbeatstheburden ofshowingthataconstituéonalvioladon occurred,while the defendant bears the burden of showing entitlem ent to qualified im m unity.H e v. Purnell,501F.3d374,377-378 (4th Cir.2007). Again,attllis point,tlae facts are in dispute as to whether a constittzdonalvioladon occurred.G arrettassezts thattheze were no other inm ateswithin eatshotofthe discussion N about Lonewolfs sex offender stattzs and thathe lacked awareness of Copper's violent 23 proclivities.Lonewolf cloim s other inm ates overheatd lnim being booked by G arrett and learned hewasa child sex offender.Lonewolfalso clqim sthatGarrettwasaware thatCopper posed arisk to claild sex offenders. In determ ining whether a rightis clearly established,a cotut must define the right allegedlyviolatedattheappropriatelevelofspeciûcity.Odom,349F.3dat773(citingW ilson v.La ne,526U.S.603,615(1999)).Tltisanalysisdoesnotcontemplatethattheexactconduct atissue has been held unlaw ful,but takes into consideraéon not only alzeady specifically adjudicated tights, but also those included within more general applicadons of the constituéonalprincipleinvoked.Id.(internalcitationsonlitted). The quesdon in this case becom es whether itw as clearly established in 2012 thatan officer's décision to house a convicted sex offender,whose history w as discovered at the instittzdon,with an inm ate w ho told the ofhcer thathe presented a threat to the offender, constituted deliberate indifference to the offender's Eighth Am endm ent rights.The court findsthatthisrightwasclearly established. . Itisw ellestablished thatfrprison offkials have a duty ...to protectprisoners from violence atthehandsofotherprisonets.''Farm er,511 U .S at833.In 2010 the Fotuth Circuit found thata plaintiffstated a clnim fordeliberateindifference when healleged thatan officer told him to enter an area ofthe prison knowing thatanother inm atç in the area harbored a grudgeagainsttheplaintiffandwhen theplaindffdid so,theotherinm ateattacked lnim .Brown v.North CatolinaDe t.ofCorrecdons,612 F.3d 720 (4th Cir.2010).Similarly,in 1987,the Foutth Citcuitfound tlaatan inm ate stated aclqim when healleged thathetold ptison ofikials 24 thathewanted to be separated from inm ateswho had threatened lnim ,wasplaced in thesam e dotvnitory as the inm ates,and was attacked by one ofthem the sam e night.Pressl v.H utto, 816F.2d977 (4t.h Cir.1987).SeealsoW ilsonv.Wriht,998F.supp.650,657(E.D.Va.1998) rfga)prison offcialincursEighthAmendmentliabilityifheorshein maldngacellassignment know s of,and is deliberately indifferent to,a substanéalrisk of serious harm one inm ate enerallyposesto anyassigned cellm ate.') The courthnds tlnatitw aswellestablished in 2012 thatthe duty to pzotectinm ates from violence atthe hands ofotherinm atesincluded m aking housing decisionsbased on a known risk thatan inm ate posed to otherinm atesplaced in hishousing azea.The conflictin the evidence precludes the courtfrom granéng Gatrett's qualifed im m lxnity defense at tlnis stageofthelitkation. CON CLU SION The colzrtG RAN T S the m oéon for sancdons,ECF N o.26,to the extentthatany evidencerequested from Lonew olfbutnotproduced as ofthe date ofthisorderwillnotbe adrnitted attrial.IfLonew olfhas failed to identify witnesses,the only witnesseswho willbe allowed to tesdfy ate thosewho tesdûed atthe summag judgmenthearing held in the flrst suit:John Lonewolf,SteveGarrett,John Higgins,JoelCopper,and CandiceBane.Thecourt also awards m onetary sanctions in an am ount to be dete= ined following subnaission by defendant as to the am ount of costs and fees expended due to Lonewolfs discovery inttansigence. 25 The court G RAN TS in part and D EN IES in part the m oéon to deem the adrnissionsadm itted,ECF N o.50.Requests forA dm ission 1,2,3,4,6,9,14,15,16,and 17 willbe deem ed adm itted.Requests forAdrnission 5,7,8,10,11,12,and 13 are notdeem ed adrnitted, and the responses sent to G arrett on February 7, 2019 are considered tim ely responsesto thosefew zequestsfor adnnissions. ThecourtDENIES Garrett'smotion fotsummaryjudgment,ECF No.28,finding thatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactrequirethecaseto bepresentedto ajury. Itisso O RD E RED . Enteted: o U - & T . - z-o fj? /w/- 4 J /. &veM' ' M ichae .Urbanski Clnief nited StatesDistrictludge 26
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
