United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
reasons explained in this Entry, the defendant's motion
for summary judgment, dkt. , is granted.
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action was filed on September
8, 2015. The plaintiff is Christopher Bailey (“Mr.
Bailey”), an inmate who at all relevant times was
confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash”). The defendant is Correctional Officer
Dustin Robbins. Mr. Bailey alleges that Officer Robbins
placed him in danger and violated his Eighth Amendment rights
when he released another offender from a cell at a time when
the plaintiff was supposed to be the only offender out of his
cell. The other offender assaulted Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey
seeks compensatory damages.
defendant seeks resolution of the plaintiff's claims
through summary judgment. The plaintiff has responded to the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and the defendant
has replied. The plaintiff filed a surreply. The motion is
ripe for resolution.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A “material fact” is one that
“might affect the outcome of the suit.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must set forth specific, admissible evidence
showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court
views the record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that
party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp.,
512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence
or make credibility determinations on summary judgment
because those tasks are left to the fact-finder.
O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625,
630 (7th Cir. 2011).
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, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standards set forth above. That is, this statement of facts
is not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary
judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the
disputed evidence are presented in the light reasonably most
favorable to Mr. Bailey as the non-moving party with respect
to the motion for summary judgment. See Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
February 14, 2014, Mr. Bailey was housed in a segregation
unit at Wabash. On that day, Officer Robbins took over the
control pod officer duties from another correctional officer
mid-shift. At this time, Officer Robbins had been employed at
the prison for eight months, working most of that time in a
different area of the prison. This was only the second time
Officer Robbins operated this particular panel. The control
pod is a circular module encased in glass. From the control
module, the control pod officer can observe all 6 ranges in B
cell house and is responsible for the opening and closing of
the doors for each cell and the doors that allow access onto
and off of each range.
inmate detail worker (also called a range worker) is
responsible for cleaning the range, which involves sweeping
and mopping, cleaning the showers, cleaning empty cells, and
passing out toilet paper and laundry to other inmates on the
range. At the time Officer Robbins took over the control pod
officer duties, the detail worker, Mr. Bailey, was already
out of his cell performing his duties on the range.
time Officer Robbins took over the control pod officer
duties, Officer Adam Davis was doing “rounds, ”
whereby he walked through each range and did a security
check. As part of his rounds, once Officer Davis completed
walking through one range he would then proceed to do a
security check on the next range. Before the officer walked
through each range to do his round, the detail worker on each
range was to lock up in either the detail worker's own
cell or a shower cell. The detail worker was to ...