United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EIGHTH
AMENDMENT CLAIMS, RELINQUISHING SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS, AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
Jermond King, an inmate at New Castle Correctional Facility,
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in the
face of a threat from his cellmate. The defendants-Mala Cook,
Trina Randall, Sergeant Heady, Officer McGrath, and GEO
Group, Inc.-have filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt.
65, 66. For the reasons below, the Court grants summary
judgment as to Mr. King's Eighth Amendment claims and
declines to continue exercising jurisdiction over his
remaining state-law claims.
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party must support any
asserted undisputed (or disputed) fact by citing to specific
portions of the record, including depositions, documents, or
affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also
support a fact by showing that the materials cited by an
adverse party do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute or that the adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(B). Affidavits or declarations must be made on
personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify
on matters stated. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4).
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the only disputed
facts that matter are material ones-those that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Williams
v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 941-42 (7th Cir. 2016).
“A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists
‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir.
2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (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. Skiba v.
Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717 (7th Cir.
2018). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility
determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are
left to the factfinder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d
822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court need only consider the
cited materials and need not “scour the record”
for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary
judgment motion. Grant v. Trustees of Indiana
University, 870 F.3d 562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017)
(quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
King has not responded to the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and the deadline to do so has passed. As a
result, Mr. King has conceded the defendants' version of
events. See Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th
Cir. 2003) (“[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as
mandated by the local rules results in an admission.”);
see S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1(b) (“A party
opposing a summary judgment motion must . . . file and serve
a response brief and any evidence . . . that the party relies
on to oppose the motion. The response must . . . identif[y]
the potentially determinative facts and factual disputes that
the party contends demonstrate a dispute of fact precluding
summary judgment.”). This does not alter the standard
for assessing a Rule 56 motion, but it does “reduc[e]
the pool” from which the facts and inferences relative
to such a motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129
F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
Mr. King has failed to respond to the defendants' summary
judgment motion, the Court sets forth the facts as stated by
the defendants, except where otherwise noted.
August and September 2017, Mr. King was incarcerated at New
Castle, which is operated by GEO Group. Ms. Cook, Ms.
Randall, Sergeant Heady, and Officer McGrath were GEO Group
August or Early September 2017, Mr. King and his cellmate
began arguing with each other. During this time, the cellmate
threatened to “beat up” Mr. King. In the first
week of September 2017, the cellmate pushed Mr. King out of
the way in their shared cell.
Cook was a teacher in Mr. King's housing unit. Ms. Cook
states in an affidavit that Mr. King never told her that his
cellmate had threatened violence. At most, Mr. King
complained about disliking his cellmate. This would not have
surprised Ms. Cook because many people disliked Mr.
Randall was the unit team manager where Mr. King was housed.
Ms. Randall stated in response to interrogatories that she
did not recall being notified by Mr. King that his cellmate
had threatened him.
August 2017, New Castle created a policy limiting inmate
movement during recreation time. That policy was documented
in a memorandum:
Be advised, that as of 08/21/2017, they're [sic] no
longer be a half time (Rest Room Break) in the units during
recreation. This is due to all the activities that has
occurred in the past several months, (Assaults, ...