Fowler v. Batts

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT COLUMBIA

JAMES E. FOWLER )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00046

)

NICK BATTS )

TO: Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., Chief United States District Judge

R E P O R T A N D R E C O M E N D A T I O N

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered November 17, 2023 (Docket Entry No. 12),

this pro se prisoner civil rights action was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.

Presently pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry

No. 21) of Defendant Nick Batts. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. For the reasons set

out below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the motion be GRANTED and this

action be DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

James E. Fowler (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se and in forma pauperis lawsuit on July 26,

2023, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his federal constitutional

rights. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff’s lawsuit is based upon events that

occurred when he was confined as a pretrial detainee at the Hickman County Jail (“Jail”) in

Centerville, Tennessee. Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the Tennessee Department of

Correction (“TDOC”). See Notice of Change of Address (Docket Entry No. 20).

Plaintiff alleges that, on June 24, 2023, he was physically assaulted at the Jail by Jail

Administrator Nick Batts (“Batts”) when Batts twisted his arm, slammed him into walls and

doors, choked him, and put a taser in his stomach. See Complaint at 5. Plaintiff alleges that he

suffered injuries as a result of this unprovoked attack. Id.

Upon initial review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(A)(b) and 1915(e)(2), the

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s official capacity claim against Batts and Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief but permitted a claim for damages to proceed against Batts in his individual

capacity based on the allegation that Batts used excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of

his Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3-5. After Batts filed

an answer (Docket Entry No. 162), a scheduling order was entered that provided for a period of

discovery and pretrial activity in the action. See Docket Entry No. 18. There are no motions

pending in the case other than Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. A trial has not yet

been scheduled in the case.

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In accordance with the scheduling order deadlines, Defendant Batts filed the pending

motion for summary judgment on August 30, 2024. Defendant acknowledges that an incident

involving Plaintiff and officers at the Jail, including himself, occurred on June 24, 2023.

However, in contrast to Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant asserts that a small measure of physical

force was used against Plaintiff, consisting of a “soft-handed technique,” to control him after he

became disruptive, verbally abusive, and combative at the Jail and refused orders from jail staff.

See Memorandum of Law (Docket Entry No. 22). Defendant denies that any excessive force was

used against Plaintiff or that Plaintiff suffered any type of injury because of the incident. Id.

2

In addition to attacking the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant Batts raises the

affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. Defendant

supports his motion with a memorandum of law, a statement of undisputed material facts

(Docket Entry No. 23), his own declaration (Docket Entry No. 21-3), and the declarations of four

Jail staff members (Docket Entry Nos. 21-1, 21-2, 21-4, and 21-5).

Plaintiff was notified of the motion, informed of the need to respond, and given an

extended deadline of October 18, 2024, to file a response. See Order entered September 4, 2024

(Docket Entry No. 24). Plaintiff was specifically warned that his failure to file a timely response

could result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 2.) Despite being given significantly more time

to file a response than is provided for by the Local Rules, Plaintiff has not filed a response of any

kind to the motion.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment is reviewed under the standard 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.” Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A genuine issue of

material fact is a fact which, if proven at trial, could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for

the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The moving party has the burden of showing the absence of genuine factual disputes

from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 249-50.

Once the moving party has presented evidence sufficient to support a motion for summary

judgment, the non-moving party must present significant probative evidence to support the

3

complaint. Goins v. Clorox Co., 926 F.2d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1991). In considering whether

summary judgment is appropriate, the Court must “look beyond the pleadings and assess the

proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Sowards v. Loudon Cnty., 203 F.3d

426, 431 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875 (2000). The Court must view the evidence and all

inferences drawn from underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the

motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., Ltd., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);

Gribcheck v. Runyon, 245 F.3d 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2001).

IV. ANALYSIS

Although the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to permit the case to

survive initial frivolity review and to have process issued to Defendant Batts, Plaintiff has not

responded to the arguments for summary judgment made by Defendant, has not responded to

Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts as required by Local Rule 56.01(f),1 and has

not set forth any evidence or argument supporting his claim.

When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported under Rule 56, such as

Defendant’s motion is, the non-moving party may not merely rest on the allegations contained in

the complaint but must respond with affirmative evidence supporting his claim and establishing

the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that requires that the action proceed to trial.

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24; Banks v. Wolfe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 330 F.3d 888, 892 (6th

Cir. 2003); Chao v. Hall Holding Co., Inc., 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s pro se

status does not relieve him of this obligation, which is a threshold requirement for all

1 Local Rule 56.01(f) provides that, upon Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s

statement of undisputed material facts, the asserted facts are deemed to be undisputed for the

purposes of summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court is permitted to rely upon the facts set

forth by Defendant as the undisputed facts.

4

non-moving parties when summary judgment is sought by an opposing party. Sixty Ivy St.

Corp. v. Alexander, 822 F.2d 1432, 1435 (6th Cir. 1987). The Court cannot supply or assume

facts supporting Plaintiff’s case and is not required to make legal arguments on his behalf.

Thompson v. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co., 208 F.3d 215, 2000 WL 302998 (6th Cir. 2000); Bell v.

Tennessee, 2012 WL 996560, *9 (E.D. Tenn. March 22, 2012); see also Guarino v. Brookfield

Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 1992) (“it seems to us utterly inappropriate for

the court to abandon its position of neutrality in favor of a role equivalent to champion for the

non-moving party: seeking out facts, developing legal theories, and finding ways to defeat the

motion.").

Defendant presents a valid failure to exhaust defense. The PLRA requires that a prisoner

must first exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Administrative exhaustion is mandatory and

requires the prisoner plaintiff to present his grievance through “one complete round” or through

all the steps of the administrative grievance procedure. Thomas v. Woolum, 337 F.3d 720, 733

(6th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006); Hartsfield v.

Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 306 (6th Cir. 1999). Once the PLRA defense is raised and supported by the

moving party, the prisoner plaintiff must present affirmative evidence showing that he has

complied with the PLRA’s requirement of exhaustion. Napier v. Laurel Cnty., Ky., 636 F.3d 218,

225 (6th Cir. 2011).

Defendant sets forth evidence that the Jail has a process permitting inmates to file

grievances but that there is no record of Plaintiff having filed a grievance about the incident at

issue. See Declaration of Joey Cox (Docket Entry No. 21-2); Statement of Undisputed Material

Facts at ¶¶ 19-20. In the face of this evidence, Plaintiff must rebut Defendant’s exhaustion

5

defense by presenting “significant probative evidence” showing compliance with the PLRA.

Napier, supra. Plaintiff has not set forth any evidence meeting this burden and rebutting

Defendant’s contention that he failed to fully pursue his claim through the administrative

grievance process prior to filing his lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit should be dismissed

because of his failure to comply with the mandatory exhaustion requirement of the PLRA.

Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity also provides a basis for granting summary

judgment. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages “unless (1) they

violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was

‘clearly established at the time.’” Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky., 945 F.3d 968, 977 (6th

Cir. 2019) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). When the

defense of qualified immunity is asserted by a defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of

overcoming the defense and affirmatively showing that the defendant is not entitled to qualified

immunity. Mosier v. Evans, 90 F.4th 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2024); McDonald, 814 F.3d at 812;

Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity is a sufficient basis upon which to grant

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Mosier v. Evans, 90

F.4th 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2024) (the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the

plaintiff’s cursory briefing makes no attempt to meet his burden of showing that the defendant

violated his clearly established rights); Winter v. City of Westlake, Ohio, 2018 WL 838283, at *9

(N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2018) (“Having moved for qualified immunity, Defendants have raised the

defense and Plaintiffs’ failure to respond militates in favor of judgment for Defendants since

Plaintiffs have not met their burden.”).

6

Finally, in light of the unrebutted and undisputed evidence before the Court, Defendant is

entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant used

unconstitutional force against Plaintiff. Defendant has set forth undisputed evidence that Plaintiff

was not assaulted as alleged but, instead, that only minimal force was used against Plaintiff as

was necessary to gain control over him after he was combative, verbally abusive, and

non-compliant with verbal orders from jail staff. See Declarations of Jamie Bragg (Docket Entry

No. 21-1), Batts (Docket Entry No. 21-3), David Jenkins (Docket Entry No. 21-4), and Mason

Quillen (Docket Entry No. 21-5); SUMF at ¶¶ 1-18.

Plaintiff is not entitled to a trial on his claim merely based on the allegations of his

complaint. Goins, supra. Plaintiff must buttress the allegations of his complaint with evidence

supporting his claim. Banks v. Wolfe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 330 F.3d 888, 892 (6th Cir. 2003). He

has not done so. Based on the evidence before the Court, no reasonable jury could find that

Defendant Batts acted in a manner that was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as a

pretrial detainee. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015). Defendant is therefore

entitled to summary judgment.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

For all these reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion for summary

judgment (Docket Entry No. 21) of Defendant Nick Batts be GRANTED and that this action be

DISMISSED WITH PREUDICE.

ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen

(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the

specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule

72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file written

7

objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District

Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and

Local Rule 72.02(b).

Respectfully submitted,

ie D. HOLMES

United States Magistrate Judge