Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mayfield v. McCoy

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

March 9, 2018

CAMERON MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,
v.
MCCOY, Defendant.

          ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Hon. William T. Lawrence, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Cameron Mayfield, an Indiana state prisoner, alleges that his civil rights were violated. Specifically, Mr. Mayfield alleges that on March 1, 2015, at 5:40 a.m., Officer Iain McCoy was responsible for admitting offenders into the 11 South dormitory (“11 South”) at Putnamville Correctional Facility (“Putnamville”) during a mass movement following breakfast. During this time, offender Branden French was able to enter 11 South, even though it was not his assigned dorm. Mr. French then proceeded to beat and injure Mr. Mayfield.

         Mr. Mayfield alleges that Officer McCoy's actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights and state tort law. Mr. McCoy seeks summary judgment as to the claims alleged against him. Counsel was recruited to assist the plaintiff.[1] For the reasons explained below, Officer McCoy's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 57, is granted.

         I. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a 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). 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).

         “The applicable substantive law will dictate which facts are material.” National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc., v. Superior Systems, Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

         II. Undisputed Facts

         Officer McCoy was hired to work at Putnamville on December 1, 2014.

         On March 1, 2015, Mr. Mayfield was housed in the “11 South” dormitory at Putnamville. 11 South is an “open” dormitory, which means that any offender within the dormitory has physical access to the other offenders.

         When it is time to eat, the officer on duty in 11 South calls for chow movement, opens the door and allows the offenders to leave their dormitory to go to the cafeteria. Before the offenders leave for the cafeteria they are supposed to line up. As the offenders leave the dormitory, the officer should record each offender's name and compare the offender's identification with the bed board roster. On March 1, 2015, offenders incarcerated in Putnamville had identification cards that they were supposed to wear attached to their clothing.

         When offenders return to the dormitory, the officer should check the offender's name and compare the offender's identification with the bed board list. During mass movements, however, it is much harder to do these checks, as a majority of offenders assigned to that housing unit are leaving and returning at the same time.

         On March 1, 2015, at approximately 5:40 a.m., Officer McCoy opened the 11 South doors to allow offenders to return from chow.

         Prior to March 1, 2015, Officer McCoy was not trained to check offender identification during mass movements. Officer McCoy did not check the identification of offenders entering 11 South following breakfast on March 1, 2015. Officer McCoy was not aware that Mr. French had entered 11 South during the return chow movement.

         Mr. Mayfield did not go to chow that day; instead he continued sleeping. When Mr. Mayfield woke up, Mr. French told him to jump down from his bunk bed. Mr. French said something to Mr. Mayfield, but Mr. Mayfield does not remember what was said. Mr. French did not say anything that gave Mr. Mayfield a reason to understand why Mr. French attacked Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Mayfield told Mr. French that he did not know what Mr. French was talking about. Mr. Mayfield jumped down from his bed and Mr. French hit Mr. Mayfield on top of the head. Some other offenders pulled Mr. French away from Mr. Mayfield.

         Mr. Mayfield then went to use the restroom. Mr. French followed Mr. Mayfield to the restroom and beat Mr. Mayfield upside his head and mashed his head against the wall. Mr. French left the restroom and attacked two other offenders. The attack occurred on the C-side of 11 South.

         Officer McCoy was still in the dormitory when the attack occurred, but Officer McCoy was sitting at the desk on the D-side. No. one yelled to Officer McCoy that there was a fight. Officer McCoy was not aware of the incident, or that Mr. French had entered 11 South until he was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.