United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
R. PEACHER, Plaintiff,
ALAN FINNAN and KEITH BUTTS, Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL
SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' second motion for summary judgment [dkt. 144] is granted.
The plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action is Robert Peacher ("Mr. Peacher"), an inmate who at all relevant times has been in custody at the Pendleton Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). The defendants are Superintendent Alan Finnan and Superintendent Keith Butts.
Mr. Peacher alleges in his amended complaint that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also alleges that defendant Mr. Finnan retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights. He seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
The defendants seek resolution of Mr. Peacher's claims through the entry of summary judgment. Mr. Peacher has opposed the motion for summary judgment and the defendants have replied.
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). Evidentiary materials submitted by the parties which comply with Rule 56 and Local Rule 56.1 will be considered in addressing the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Materials not in compliance with those standards will be disregarded.
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 Mr. Peacher as the non-moving party, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment:
Defendant Finnan was employed as the Superintendent of Pendleton from August 2009 until June 2011. Defendant Butts was the Superintendent of Pendleton beginning on June 6, 2011, and continued in that position after the date that this action was filed. As Superintendent, Mr. Finnan and Mr. Butts were each successively responsible for the operational oversight of the facility, including security, facility maintenance, industries, offender classification, re-entry programming, budget, human resources, and contract services for medical services, food services, and education.
Neither Mr. Finnan nor Mr. Butts has any medical training. In their capacity as Superintendent, Mr. Finnan and Mr. Butts both relied on the expertise of Correctional Medical Services/Corizon Healthcare Services (now called "Corizon") to provide medical care to the offenders at the prison. Pendleton is a Level 4 maximum security facility with very restrictive security measures. Mr. Peacher is housed in Departmental Administrative Segregation, a maximum security unit.
Mr. Peacher was transferred from Westville Correctional Facility to Pendleton on approximately December 30, 2010. Mr. Peacher had the use of an electric shaver at his previous facilities. Approximately one or two weeks after his transfer to Pendleton, Mr. Peacher ...