United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ANTHONY W. REED, Plaintiff,
MARK J. BOWEN, et al. Defendants.
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Anthony W. Reed is currently incarcerated at the Putnamville
Correctional Facility. He filed a civil rights complaint
based on the conditions he experienced while he was
incarcerated at the Hamilton County Jail (Jail) in
Noblesville, Indiana. The Court screened his complaint and
determined that Mr. Reed adequately stated an Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants
Mark Bowen and Jason Sloderbeck and a retaliation claim
against defendant J. Miller.
pending before the Court is the defendants' motion for
summary judgment filed on October 30, 2017. Dkt. No. 57. This
motion is now fully briefed. This Entry also resolves two
other ancillary motions. Dkt. No. 85; Dkt. No. 87.
defendants' motion argues that Mr. Reed's
constitutional claims are without merit. Mr. Reed's
response argues that the defendants are not entitled to
summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 57, is
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. 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.”). “When a
motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported,
an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or
denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must-by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule-set out
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the
opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should,
if appropriate, be entered against that party.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). The nonmoving party bears the burden
of demonstrating that such a genuine issue of material fact
exists. Harney v. Speedway Super America, LLC., 526
F.3d 1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008). 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. 2001).
Rule 56-1(b) requires a non-movant to include a section
labeled “Statement of Material Facts in Dispute”
that identifies the potentially determinative facts and
factual disputes that the party contends demonstrate a
dispute of fact precluding summary judgment. While Mr. Reed
included a section labeled “Statement of Material Facts
in Dispute” that is the only way he complied with the
Local Rule. His “Statement” does not include any
potentially determinative facts. Rather, it is a three page
document that restates each legal claim. For example, Mr.
Reed includes the following paragraph as a
2. Whether the plaintiff by informing defendant Miller and,
other Hamilton County Jail officers present that he intended
to file his legal action claim over the adverse confine,
conditions imposed upon him, on the morning of January 23,
2015, as he (the plaintiff) was being booked out of the
Hamilton County Jail, was sufficient enough, couple with the
genuine issue of material fact alleged in paragraph 1 to
also, placed the defendants on "Notice" of the
plaintiff's intention to seek legal action against the
Dkt. No. 87.
the declaration under penalties of perjury that Mr. Reed
provided as evidence contains primarily allegations or
conclusory statements, but does not set out specific facts
showing a genuine issue for trial. Dkt. No. 86. Although pro
se filings are construed liberally, pro se litigants such as
Mr. Reed are not exempt from procedural rules. See Pearle
Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008)
(noting that “pro se litigants are not excused from
compliance with procedural rules”); Members v.
Paige, 140 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1998) (stating that
procedural rules “apply to uncounseled litigants and
must be enforced”).
Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute
following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standard 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 most favorable to Mr.
Reed as the non-moving party with respect to the motion for
summary judgment. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
Reed, as a pre-trial detainee, was incarcerated at the Jail
in 2014 and 2015. In 2014, there were 256 general population
beds at the Jail for males. Dkt. No. 58-2, p. 24. In 2015,
there were 218 general population beds at the Jail for males.
Dkt. No. 58-2, p. 42. During this time, the average daily
male inmate population was 246 and 238, respectively. Dkt.
No. 58-2, pp. 26, 44. Defendant Captain Sloderbeck has been
the Jail Commander at the Jail for the last seven years. Dkt.
No. 58-2, ¶ 1. Defendant Mark Bowen is the Hamilton
Reed filed a civil rights complaint that alleged Eighth
Amendment violations based on being triple-bunked, being
confined in his cell for 20 hours per day, and being exposed
to inadequate cleaning supplies that caused an intense
itching to his face. Mr. Reed also alleged that Officer
Miller retaliated against him by throwing his legal papers
away after he threatened to file a lawsuit about the
conditions at the Jail. The defendants argue that they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Mr.
Reed's Eighth Amendment rights were not violated.
Defendant Miller argues that Mr. Reed's First Amendment
rights were not violated because he did not retaliate against
Eighth Amendment Claim
goal of the Jail's classification system is to provide
for the safety and protection of all of the Jail's
pretrial detainees and inmates. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 3. The
Jail seeks to accomplish this goal by housing like-kind
offenders together, meaning that minimum security inmates are
housed with other minimum security inmates, medium security
inmates are housed with other medium security inmates, and
maximum security inmates are housed with other maximum
security inmates. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 3. Jail officers do
not have the discretion to place inmates outside of their
known security status. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 4. The security
status of each inmate is determined by the Jail officers
based on information known to them. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 5.
Such information includes information available to them on
the Jail's New World Computer System and personal
interactions Jail officers have with individual inmates. Dkt.
No. 58-3, ¶ 5. The New World Computer System uses
Northpointe, Inc. which is used by jails and correctional
facilities throughout the country. Northpointe uses a
“classification tree” system. Dkt. No. 58-3, p.
4. This classification tree system categorizes security
placement based on an inmate's past and current charges,
whether there are any current holds for an inmate, an
inmate's disciplinary history, and an inmate's
residency. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ ¶ 7, 8. Based on the
answers to these questions, Northpointe determines the
security status of an inmate.
inmate may be placed in a cell with two other inmates (in a
cell designed for two inmates), which is described by some as
triple-celling. This occurs in two situations: 1) when there
is no empty cell available for the inmate (which is generally
the case given the Jail's inmate population); or 2) there
is no open bunk available for the inmate with other inmates
who have the same classification (i.e., inmates cannot be
placed with other inmates with a higher or lower
classification). Placing three inmates in a two person cell
is done because it is less risky than placing the inmate with
an inmate of a different classification level. Dkt. No. 58-3,
¶ 9. When inmates are triple-celled, two (2) of the
inmates sleep in the bunks and the third inmate sleeps on a
mattress on the floor. Dkt. No. 58-1, p. 74; Dkt. No. 86, p.
Mr. Reed was incarcerated at the Jail, he was housed in cells
404, 425, 427, and 429. In cell 404, each inmate had 15.69
square feet of space. In cell 425, each inmate had 17.86
square feet of space. In cell 427, each inmate had 17.40
square feet of space. In cell 429, each inmate had 16.80
square feet of space. Dkt. No. 58-2, pp. 114-120.
December of 2014 through April of 2015, Jail officers allowed
inmates out of their cells for up to four hours per day. Dkt.
No. 58-2, ¶ 14.
the relevant times at issues in this action, Mr. Reed was
triple-celled on many occasions. In the early morning hours
of December 18, 2014, Mr. Reed was triple-celled in cell 404
where he remained for eleven days until December 29, 2014.
Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 11; Dkt. No. 58-3, p. 5.
evening hours of December 29, 2014, Mr. Reed was moved to
cell 427 and remained there until December 31, 2014. During
this two day period, Mr. Reed was triple-celled. Dkt. No.
58-3, ¶ 12; Dkt. No. 58-3, p. 6.
January 6, 2015 to January 10, 2015, Mr. Reed was
triple-celled in cell 425. From January 12, 2015, at 4:30
p.m. though January 14, 2015, at 12:11 a.m. (one day and
eight hours) Mr. Reed was triple-celled in cell 425.
Thereafter, for a week, from January 16, 2015, until January
23, 2015, Mr. Reed was also triple-celled. Dkt. No. 58-3,
¶ 13; Dkt. No. 58-3, p. 8.
Reed returned to the Hamilton County Jail in mid-March of
2015. He was again triple-celled in cell 425
through March 19, 2015. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 14; Dkt. No.
58-3, p. 9.
early morning hours of March 19, 2015, Mr. Reed was placed in
cell 429. While Mr. Reed remained in this cell until April
17, 2015, he was only triple-celled for portions of this
period of his incarceration. Specifically, Mr. Reed was
triple-celled from March 20, 2015, to March 23, 2015, from
March 27, 2015, to March 30, 2015, and from April 1, 2015 to
April 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 58-3, pp.
summary, Mr. Reed was triple-celled at the Hamilton County
Jail, in cells 404, 425, 427 and 429, for a total of
approximately 51 days. Dkt. No. 58-3, ¶ 16.4. These days
were not consecutive.
Conditions at the Jail
State Jail Inspector performed an audit of the Jail in 2014
and 2015 and made the following determinations:
• the cubic feet per minute of air flow movement on the
date of inspection was 256.5 to 443 c/f/m in 2014 and 256.5
to 443 c/f/m (on the date of inspection)
• the cell temperatures at the time of the inspection
were 71-72 degrees Fahrenheit in 2014 and 73.3 ...