United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. JORDAN III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
§ 1983 case is before the Court on the Motion for
Summary Judgment  filed by Defendants R. Dilliard, Scotty
Moore, and David Redd. For the reasons that follow,
Defendants' motion is granted as to the official-capacity
claims but otherwise denied.
Facts and Procedural History
January 27, 2015, Plaintiff Cedric Cry was arrested on a
probation violation related to a prior felony conviction. He
was taken to the Hinds County Detention Center in Raymond,
Mississippi and placed in a holding tank with other inmates.
At some point, officers notified the inmates that they were
being moved to their cell blocks and asked them to pack their
belongings. Cry told the officers he was “not supposed
to be housed in this jail.” Omnibus Tr.  at 8.
Officers told him he would be housed in “the old folks
zone, ” and Cry eventually “turned to go in the
cell in the tank to get [his] mat.” Id. at 9.
When he turned to go into the cell, he claims that Defendant
Dilliard “grabbed [him] and pulled [him] back out in
the hallway” where Defendant Moore “grabbed [him]
around [his] throat, pushed [his] head up against the wall .
. . and put his knee in [Cry's] back.” Id.
After that, Cry claims Defendant Redd “came and grabbed
[him] and hit [him] in [his] mouth and broke [his] tooth and
ran [his] head into the wall.” Id.
filed this lawsuit against Dilliard, Moore, Redd, and others
on April 28, 2015. After the dismissal of some defendants,
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball held a Spears hearing
on June 29, 2016. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d
179 (5th Cir. 1985). Following that hearing, Judge Ball
clarified that Cry's claims against Dilliard, Moore, and
Redd-the sole remaining Defendants-are based on his
allegation that “he was beaten by three guards
at” the Hinds County Detention Center. Omnibus Order
 at 1. At the close of discovery, Defendants filed their
motion for summary judgment. Cry responded in opposition
, and Defendants filed a reply . The Court has
personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and is prepared to
judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(a) when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. The rule “mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery
and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323.
The nonmoving party must then “go beyond the
pleadings” and “designate ‘specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
Id. at 324 (citation omitted). In reviewing the
evidence, factual controversies are to be resolved in favor
of the nonmovant, “but only when . . . both parties
have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.”
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc). When such contradictory facts exist,
the court may “not make credibility determinations or
weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). Conclusory
allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and
legalistic arguments have never constituted an adequate
substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for
trial. TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276
F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002); Little, 37 F.3d at
1075; SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.
filed a response to Defendants' motion, but he did not
support his response by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record” to show the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A).
And while the Court “need consider only the cited
materials, . . . it may consider other materials in the
record” as well. Id. R. 56(c)(3). The record
in this case includes Cry's sworn testimony given at the
Spears hearing. The Court has considered the record
as a whole in ruling on the summary-judgment motion.
argue that all of Cry's claims are barred by his alleged
failure to exhaust. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
prisoners must exhaust any available administrative remedies
prior to filing suit under § 1983. Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006). “[T]o properly
exhaust administrative remedies prisoners must
‘complete the administrative review process in
accordance with the applicable procedural rules, '”
and the rules that apply are those defined “by the
prison grievance process itself.” Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (quoting
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 88). Finally, “[s]ince
exhaustion is an affirmative defense, the burden is on
[Defendants] to demonstrate that [Cry] failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies.” Dillon v.
Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).
did not submit a copy of the grievance procedures for the
Hinds County Detention Center along with their motion for
summary judgment. Instead, they rely on the Affidavit of
Warden Mary Rushing, who says, “In order to exhaust
administrative remedies at Hinds County Detention Center,
inmates must submit grievance forms which outline their
complaints.” Rushing Aff. [27-4] ¶ 4. Rushing says
that she “personally conducted a search of Cedric
Cry's Hinds County inmate file, and said search revealed
that Mr. Cry did not file any grievances during the course of
his 2015 incarceration.” Id. ¶ 5.
part, Cry testified under oath at the Spears hearing
that he submitted a grievance form regarding the January 27,
2015 incident. Omnibus Tr.  at 18. Defendants acknowledge
this testimony, noting that it conflicts with Rushing's
testimony. Defs.' Mem.  at 12. But at the
summary-judgment stage, the Court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party-here, Cry.
And because Cry says he filed a grievance, which is the only
step in the ...