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.

Young v. Mandeville

May 20, 2010

EDDIE YOUNG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. MANDEVILLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants' summary judgment motion filed September 18, 2009. (Dkt. No. 173.) On November 20, 2009, plaintiff filed his opposition. (Dkt. No. 177.) On December 22, 2009, plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition. (Dkt. No. 180.) On January 4, 2010, defendants filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 181.)

After carefully considering the entire record, the undersigned recommends that defendants' motion be granted.

II. Amended Complaint

This case is proceeding on the first amended complaint and declaration in support thereof filed November 6, 2006, against defendants Mandeville, Mayfield, Gasway, Chastain and Chugg.*fn1 (Dkt. Nos. 76, 77.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his right to due process in connection with his placement and retention in administrative segregation ("ad seg"). Plaintiff also alleges that defendants retaliated against him, violated his right to access the courts, violated the Eighth Amendment and his right to Equal Protection.

Plaintiff alleges that on April 11, 2000, defendant Chugg denied him access to photocopying services and the law library in violation of his right to access the courts.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 22, 2000, he was attacked by inmate Stewart in the law library. Following that incident, defendant Chugg allegedly falsely charged plaintiff with attacking inmate Stewart. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Chugg made the false charge in retaliation for plaintiff's filing of administrative grievances.

On August 23, 2000, following a hearing conducted by defendant Mandeville, plaintiff was placed in ad seg based on the incident involving inmate Stewart. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mandeville denied him his rights to an investigative employee and to call witnesses at this hearing. Plaintiff alleges that there was not sufficient evidence to support defendant Mandeville's decision to place him in ad seg. Following that hearing, plaintiff was held in ad seg for 108 days.

On August 30, 2000, a hearing was held to consider plaintiff's continued retention in ad seg. Prior to that hearing, defendant Gasway was appointed as plaintiff's investigative employee. Plaintiff requested a postponement of the hearing because he did not believe that defendant Gasway had conducted an adequate investigation.

At the hearing, defendants Mandeville and Chastain allegedly denied plaintiff's request to present witnesses and evidence as well as his request to postpone the hearing. Plaintiff also alleges that this hearing was not timely.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mayfield conspired to cover up the false charges made against him by defendant Chugg.

Plaintiff was found guilty of the disciplinary charges on October 17, 2000.

III. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that the standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) is met. "The judgment sought should be rendered if . . . there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," ...


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.