United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C. GARGIULO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE COURT is the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63)
filed by Defendants County of Jackson Mississippi, Mike
Ezell, Wendy Nevals, and Mike Wright. Plaintiff has not filed
a response to date. Accordingly, the undersigned proceeds
without the benefit of a response from Plaintiff. Having
considered Defendants' arguments, the record as a whole,
and relevant law, the undersigned recommends that
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) be
GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against all defendants should
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
Shawn LaBarron Davis is a prisoner in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”)
housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
(“MSP”) in Parchman, Mississippi. However, the
subject of his lawsuit is the conditions he experienced while
incarcerated at the Jackson County Adult Detention Center
(“JCADC”) in Pascagoula, Mississippi from May 4,
2015 to December 4, 2015. He filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1)
on March 3, 2016, which alleges that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights and seeks both monetary damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
27, 2016, Plaintiff sought leave to amend his Complaint to
clarify that he did not assert claims against Defendants
Ezell, Nevals, and Wright in their official capacities; he
only intended to name them in their individual capacities.
Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 23). The Court granted
this Motion to Amend Complaint on October 10, 2016.
See Order (ECF No. 25). On January 18, 2017, the
Court held an omnibus hearing,  during which Plaintiff
supplemented the allegations in his Complaint. See
Minute Entry Jan. 18, 2017; Transcript of Omnibus Hearing
(ECF No. 50). Defendants thereafter filed the instant Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) and accompanying Memorandum
in Support (ECF No. 64) on May 12, 2017.
alleges that, while housed in zone K-E at the JCADC from May
4, 2015 to December 4, 2015, he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See
Complaint (ECF No. 1, at 4-7); Omnibus Hearing Transcript
(ECF No. 50, at 11). He alleges (1) that the cells on his
unit lacked working light fixtures (though the open bay in
the zone had functioning lights) and the nonfunctioning light
fixtures had exposed asbestos-coated wires, (2) that water
constantly leaked onto the floor from the “pipe
chase” under the toilet in the neighboring cell, (3)
that Plaintiff was at times forced to sleep on wet, moldy
mats on the floor due to overcrowding, (4) that the zone
became too cold in October and November 2015 because the
heater was not turned on or was not working, (5) that certain
toilets were broken and were therefore filled with unflushed
urine, (6) that certain sinks were broken and the showers had
no hot water, and (7) that the main door to zone K-E was
broken, such that it could only be opened by physical force
(when functioning properly, it operated remotely and
electronically). See (ECF No. 1, at 4-7); (ECF No.
50, at 27-40).
maintains that Defendants were aware of these conditions and
failed to remedy them. (ECF No. 1, at 6-7); (ECF No. 50, at
11-27). Moreover, he asserts that Defendants specifically
placed certain inmates - including Plaintiff - in zone K-E as
punishment for bad conduct. (ECF No. 50, at 20-27). Plaintiff
asserts that he was “mentally and physically tortured
by being forced to live in these poor and hazardous life
threatening conditions at the [JCADC].” (ECF No. 1, at
he identifies only two incidents in which any of these
conditions caused him physical injury. In October 2015, he
walked out of his cell and slipped on the water leaking out
of the adjacent cell and fell on his back. (ECF No. 50, at
32-33). Other inmates helped him get up and staff provided
him with “some medical treatment.” Id.
at 33, 36. Then, in November 2015 he “got sick because
of that cold air” and was moved to a warmer part of the
unit before later being given “some cold medicine and a
flu shot.” Id. at 39-40. After December 4,
2015, Plaintiff was moved to the new facility built to
replace the old JCADC. See Id. at 40.
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). “When the moving party has carried its burden
under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show
that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “[T]he nonmovant
must go beyond the pleadings and ...