United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORDANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause comes before the Court on the motion of Defendants
Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”),
Assistant Commissioner Gwendolyn Mosley, and Warden Cynthia
Stewart (collectively, “the
Defendants”) for summary judgment. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff
has filed a Response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 43).
Having reviewed the motion, the parties'
briefs, and the relevant legal authority, and for
the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Defendants'
motion for summary judgment is due to be GRANTED.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
matter jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as
to Plaintiff's federal causes of action, and the Court
may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The
parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and
there are adequate allegations to support both. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate when 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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court views the evidence, and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Jean-Baptiste v.
Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).
party moving for summary judgment “always bears the
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the
basis for the motion.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility
includes identifying the portions of the record illustrating
the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Id. Alternatively, a movant who does not have a
trial burden of production can assert, without citing the
record, that the nonmoving party “cannot produce
admissible evidence to support” a material fact.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 advisory committee's note (“Subdivision
(c)(1)(B) recognizes that a party need not always point to
specific record materials.... [A] party who does not have the
trial burden of production may rely on a showing that a party
who does have the trial burden cannot produce admissible
evidence to carry its burden as to the fact.”).
movants meet their burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
party to establish - with evidence beyond the pleadings -
that a genuine dispute material to each of its claims for
relief exists. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. A
genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving
party produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact finder to
return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge
Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff was an inmate at Fountain Correctional Facility in
“E-Dorm, ” the segregation dormitory. (Doc. 39-1
at 1). On November 7, 2015, inmates in the E-Dorm engaged in
a riot. Id. “Several inmates had their faces
wrapped with T-shirts in the dorm and [were] observed with
inmate-made knives and broken broom handles for
weapons.” Id. The Southern Correctional
Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) was deployed to
end the riot. The CERT used “chemical agents” and
extracted 61 inmates from the E-Dorm in “flex
November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this
Court against the ADOC, Mosley, Stewart, and
McKenzie. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged
that Defendant McKenzie “wrongfully accused the
Plaintiff of starting the riot.” (Doc. 1 at ¶ 8).
The Plaintiff claimed that during the riot, he suffered
injuries when “a number of the guards including most of
the Riot Squad pushed him to the floor and started hitting
the Plaintiff in the head, back and legs.” (Doc. 1 at
¶ 10). It is undisputed that following the riot, ADOC
moved the Plaintiff to a different correctional facility.
(Doc. 1 at ¶ 12; Doc. 39-1 at 2). The Plaintiff has not
alleged or offered evidence that Mosley or Stewart were in
any manner involved in the alleged beating.
four-count Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Plaintiff claims that he was
denied both substantive and procedural due process rights
granted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC
Sections 1983, 1981, 2000e along with the guarantees of the
U.S. Constitution - 14th and 1st Amendments, related to
wrongfully accusing the Plaintiff of instigating the
November, 2015 riot, when he did not have anything to do with
starting said riot. The Plaintiff objects to not being given
any opportunity to defend himself or claim and prove his
innocence or have DOC to better investigate the
2. The Plaintiff claims that he was “subjected to
‘cruel and unusual treatment & Punishment' by
the named Defendant guard(s) and their supervisors in
violation of 42 USC Sections [sic] 1983…”
3. The Plaintiff purports to seek personal injury damages
from a list of state court claims including:
1. Multiple acts of Harassment;
2. Multiple Acts of ...