United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JEREMY L. DALE, Plaintiff,
ANTHONY AGRESTA, SHERIFF JOHN LAYTON, MARION COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., Defendants.
ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Jeremy Dale (“Mr. Dale”), an Indiana prisoner
incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison (“ISP”),
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that the defendant Anthony Agresta was deliberately
indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth
Amendment by failing to restrain him while being transported
in a police vehicle. He also alleges that Sheriff John Layton
and the Marion County Sheriff's Department have a policy
or practice of not restraining inmates while they are being
transported and that this policy places inmates in danger in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Dale also alleges that
Anthony Agresta was deliberately indifferent to the injuries
he sustained in a car accident by failing to provide him with
medical attention in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. The parties have all moved for summary
judgment. For the following reasons, Mr. Dale's
motions for summary judgment, dkt. [136, 142], are
denied and the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, dkt. , is granted.
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that 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.” In ruling on
a motion for summary judgment, the admissible evidence
presented by the non-moving party must be believed and all
reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's
favor. Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d
487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007); Zerante v. DeLuca, 555
F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (“We view the record in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor.”).
However, “[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a
particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must
affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations,
that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires
trial.” Hemsworth, 476 F.3d at 490. Finally,
the non-moving party bears the burden of specifically
identifying the relevant evidence of record, and “the
court is not required to scour the record in search of
evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir.
existence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not,
however, imply that there are no genuine issues of material
fact.” R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., LLC v.
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, 335 F.3d 643,
647 (7th Cir. 2003). Cross-motions for summary judgment are
treated separately. McKinney v. Cadleway Properties,
Inc., 548 F.3d 496, 504 n. 4 (7th Cir. 2008). When
cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, courts
“look to the burden of proof that each party would bear
on an issue of trial; [courts] then require that party to go
beyond the pleadings and affirmatively to establish a genuine
issue of material fact.” Santaella v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 123 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 1997).
following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary
Mr. Dale has been incarcerated since 2003. He is currently
incarcerated at the ISP in Michigan City, Indiana. On April
30, 2013, he was in Indianapolis seeking post-conviction
relief. Dkt. -1, p. 4. That day, Mr. Dale was to be
transported back to the ISP He was in ankle restraints and
handcuffs. He had a shackle chain and black box around his
waist. The handcuffs and ankle restraints were connected to
the black box at his waist. He was loaded into a Marion
County Sheriff Office (“MCSO”) transport vehicle
but was not placed in seatbelts or otherwise restrained. A
female inmate was also being transported in the same van with
Mr. Dale. Dkt. - 1, p. 5. The transport vehicle was a
Ford E-350 passenger van. Dkt. -2, p. 17. Deputy Anthony
Agresta was driving the transport van. Deputy William Ellis
was riding in the passenger seat.
At approximately 8:45 a.m., the transport van was stopped at
a red light at the intersection of New York Street and Pine
Street in Indianapolis. The transport van was struck from
behind by a second vehicle. Mr. Dale states that immediately
following the collision, he was tossed around and saw stars.
He was thrown into a cage that separated him from the door,
and ended up crunched up on the floor. He hit a portion of
the cage separating him from the other passenger. He then
felt pain shoot down his back, leg, and groin area. Because
of the hand cuffs and waist chain, Mr. Dale was not able to
use his arms to protect himself. Dkt. 163-1, pp. 7-9. After
the van was struck, Deputy Agresta immediately placed the van
in park and activated his emergency lights. Dkt. 163-2. He
exited the van and checked on the passengers. Deputy Agresta
asked Mr. Dale if he was injured. Dkt. 163-1, p. 13. Mr. Dale
complained that his neck, back, leg and groin hurt because he
hit the metal cage. Dkt. 163-1, p. 14.
Deputy Agresta radioed dispatch to inform them that he had
been involved in an accident and requested an accident
report. Deputy Ellis radioed Lieutenant Steve Keithley, who
arrived on the scene with Deputy Steve Crawley. Dkt. 163-2,
After the collision, Deputy Agresta's supervisor, Sgt.
Schuyler Atkins, arrived on the scene and completed a
Supervisor's Vehicle Crash and Damage Report. When
preparing this report, Sgt. Atkins spoke with the driver of
the vehicle that struck the van, Amanda Wuestefeld.
Wuestefeld claimed that she was traveling at the estimated
speed of 2 mph when her vehicle struck the van. She stated
that she accelerated when she saw traffic in the next lane
move forward before she realized the transport van had not
yet accelerated. Dkt. 163-2, p. 5.
Sgt. Atkins also spoke to Mr. Dale and noted he complained of
pain in his upper torso. Dkt. 163-2. An Indianapolis Fire
Department medic was dispatched to the scene, but Lt.
Keithley disregarded the medic and instructed Deputy Crawley
to transport Mr. Dale to the Jail to be evaluated by medical
personnel. Dkt. 163-2, p. 5.
Deputy Agresta and another officer removed Mr. Dale from the
transport van and carried him to a patrol car. Dkt. 163-1,
pp. 10, 13, 16. Mr. Dale was transported back to the Jail.
Dkt. 163-1, p. 16.
Mr. Dale was taken directly to be seen by medical personnel
when he arrived at the Jail. After being examined by medical
personnel at the Jail, Mr. Dale was transported to Wishard
Hospital by a transport vehicle. Dkt. 163-1, p. 16. This
transport vehicle had safety belts. Mr. Dale estimates that
he was transported ...