United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
LARRY J. McKINNEY, District Judge.
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 89] is granted and the plaintiff's motion to deny defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 99] is denied.
The plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action is Raymond Love ("Love"), an inmate in custody at all relevant times at the Pendleton Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). The defendants are prison library supervisor Wayne Scaife ("Scaife"), library supervisor Nova Guffey ("Guffey"), Sgt. Timothy Nickles ("Sgt. Nickles"), and Vedora Hinshaw ("Hinshaw"). Love alleges that the defendants prevented him from having adequate access to the law library from March 2008, through June 2008, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He seeks damages.
The defendants seek resolution of Love's claims through the entry of summary judgment. Love has opposed the motion for summary judgment.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate 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). A dispute about a material fact is genuine only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there is no "genuine" dispute. Scott v. Harris, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-movant=s favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
A. Undisputed Facts
On the basis of the pleadings and the portions of the expanded record that comply with the requirements of Rule 56(c)(1), construed in a manner most favorable to Love as the non-moving party, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment.
In early 2008, Love was confined at Pendleton in the O dorm. Hinshaw was a case manager at Pendleton in 2008. In March of 2008, Scaife was the law library supervisor. Guffey assumed the duties as law library supervisor in May 2008. In 2008, Sgt. Nickles was the grievance supervisor at Pendleton.
When Love had a deadline in a legal matter, he would take to the law library a copy of the order setting forth the deadline to let the supervisor know about the deadline. The law library staff would make a copy of the document and let Love know when he could start coming to the law library to work on his legal matters. Sometimes Love gave his paperwork to another offender to take to the law library to inform staff of his deadline. Once the law library supervisor received information regarding a specific deadline, Love would receive a pass that would allow him to go to the law library. Offenders could also complete law library forms to request a pass to use the law library. Offenders receive their passes to go to the law library from correctional officers.
On January 14, 2008, Love filed a notice of appeal in Indiana state court appealing the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief related to his 1999 criminal conviction. Love's post-conviction claims involved allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, jury misconduct, and prosecutor misconduct.
Love's original deadline for his brief and appendix was thirty days after the completion of the clerk's record on March 5, 2008, meaning April 4, 2008. Love provided the order to another offender to take to the law library the day after he received the order. On March 28, 2008, Love filed a motion for extension of time to file his ...