F. KEITH BALL, Magistrate Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Compton and Longley ("State Defendants") [70] and the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Alexander, Buscher, Rice and Thomas [72], as well as Plaintiff's Motion to File Additional Motions [75]. Having considered the entire record in this matter, the Court grants Defendants' Motions and denies Plaintiff's,
Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this Section 1983 suit regarding an incident that took place while he was housed at East Mississippi Correctional Facility ("EMCF").
Plaintiff's claims, as clarified at the omnibus hearing, are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that he was stabbed and beaten by six inmates at EMCF, while guards looked on but failed to protect him. Plaintiff alleges that EMCF officials then failed to properly investigate the incident. Plaintiff testified that he sued Defendants Archie Longley and Anthony Compton because they were state officials in supervisory roles with respect to EMCF. [72-1] at 16, 18. Plaintiff claimed that he sued Defendant Warden James Buscher for failing to protect him and for not investigating the incident. [72-1] at 17. Plaintiff testified that he sued Defendant Michael Rice because he never got the videotape of the attack on Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff stated that he sued Tony Thomas because he discouraged Plaintiff from pursuing his claim through the Administrative Remedy Program ("ARP"). Id. at 18. Plaintiff testified that he sued Defendant James Alexander for the same reason. Id. All Defendants have moved for summary judgment [70, 72].
"Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party can show that `there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" United States v. Renda Marine, Inc., 667 F.3d 651, 655 (5
The State Defendants have moved for summary judgment as to any claims against them in their official capacities based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits suits against states in federal court brought by private citizens. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). This immunity from suit extends to state agencies and state officials sued in their official capacities for any relief, except certain types of injunctive relief. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-103 (1984); Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages and therefore his claims against Defendants Compton and Longley in their official capacities are barred.
All Defendants have moved for summary judgment with respect to the claims against them in their individual capacities. Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to any claims against them in their individual capacities. "`[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 462 (5
When determining whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated and if so, whether that right was clearly established. See, e.g., McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 322-23 (5
The Eighth Amendment guarantees inmates safety, which gives rise to a duty to protect inmates from violence by other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). The Supreme Court described the duty to protect as follows:
Id. at 834 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff has not argued that any of the five Defendants was aware of any risk of harm to Plaintiff before the attack. There is no vicarious liability under Section 1983. Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742 (5
Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Thomas and Alexander for allegedly discouraging his ARP fail to state a claim. Though Plaintiff claims that those Defendants discouraged his use of the ARP process, he utilized it to completion. The records submitted by Plaintiff and by Defendants reflect that Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the stabbing, the grievance was in fact investigated and one inmate was disciplined as a result. [1] at 6-9,[72-2],[72-3].
With respect to Plaintiff's claims regarding failure to investigate the attack and failure to provide a videotape of the incident, Plaintiff submits no authority in support of his contention that either of those is a federally protected right. Moreover, as noted, the records submitted indicate that the grievance was investigated and action taken. Plaintiff's request to "red tag" or be kept separate from the inmates who attacked him was honored. [72-2], [72-4]. Plaintiff had no federally protected right to have his grievance resolved to his satisfaction and therefore his claim that Defendants failed to properly investigate his grievance fails. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5
Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motions [70, 72] are granted. Plaintiff's motion [75] is denied. A separate judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants.
SO ORDERED.