Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perkins v. Arnold

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

April 15, 2019

MELVIN LAMAR PERKINS PLAINTIFF
v.
VAN ARNOLD et al DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

          ROBERT H. WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Melvin Lamar Perkins, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed on June 7, 2017, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights lawsuit alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution. In an order dated September 21, 2018, the Court identified the following claims alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, as amended:

(1) Defendant Van Arnold failed to protect Plaintiff from violence at the hands of other inmates based on an attack that occurred on or about December 26, 2016.
(2) Defendant Mark Davis failed to protect Plaintiff because he made him stay in C-1 even though Plaintiff told Davis his life was in danger.
(3) Defendant Whittaker forced Plaintiff to go back on the zone, which cost Plaintiff $100 to save his life.
(4) Defendant Regina Reed ordered other inmates to attack Plaintiff.
(5) Defendants Jacequelyn Banks, Katherine Blount, and Pelicia Hall failed to provide adequate supervision of prison staff to prevent gang-related activity and abuse of non-gang affiliated inmates.
(6) Defendant Ronnie Lampley used excessive force against Plaintiff on August 20, 2015.
(7) SMCI is understaffed, which allows gang affiliated inmates to control SMCI prison staff and to run an extortion and contraband operation. Plaintiff requests the implementation of various remedies to alleviate the risk of harm to non-gang affiliated inmates, including separation of gang-affiliated inmates from non-gang affiliated inmates, installation of security cameras, and increase in the number of security officers.
(8) Plaintiff requests that he be taken to a brain specialist for treatment of head injuries suffered as a result of inmate attacks.

Doc. [149] at 1-2. Pending before the Court is Defendants motion for summary judgment asserting that Plaintiff failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies for any of these claims prior to filing his complaint. Doc. [151]. Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Instead, he filed a series of motions, none of which addresses the exhaustion issue. See Doc. [153] [154] [155] [156].

         Law and Analysis

         Summary Judgment Standard

         Rule 56 provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment 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); Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). Where the summary judgment evidence establishes that one of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action does not exist as a matter of law, all other contested issues of fact are rendered immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Topalin v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1138 (5th Cir. 1992). In making its determinations of fact on a motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.