Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Hailey v. Kaiser, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes a case in which Ace Hailey, an inmate, brought a Section 1983 claim against prison officials for failing to protect him from another inmate, Hines, who had previously stabbed Hailey. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed on the grounds that: 1) while factual disputes existed, Hailey was the aggressor in the altercation with Hines and therefore the defendants were not the proximate cause of Hailey's injuries; and 2) without a showing of physical injury, Hailey could not claim emotional distress damages under the PLRA. The court also denied Hailey's request for declaratory relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Hailey v. Kaiser, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    38 views8 pages
    This order summarizes a case in which Ace Hailey, an inmate, brought a Section 1983 claim against prison officials for failing to protect him from another inmate, Hines, who had previously stabbed Hailey. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed on the grounds that: 1) while factual disputes existed, Hailey was the aggressor in the altercation with Hines and therefore the defendants were not the proximate cause of Hailey's injuries; and 2) without a showing of physical injury, Hailey could not claim emotional distress damages under the PLRA. The court also denied Hailey's request for declaratory relief.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-11-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7046

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order summarizes a case in which Ace Hailey, an inmate, brought a Section 1983 claim against prison officials for failing to protect him from another inmate, Hines, who had previously stabbed Hailey. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed on the grounds that: 1) while factual disputes existed, Hailey was the aggressor in the altercation with Hines and therefore the defendants were not the proximate cause of Hailey's injuries; and 2) without a showing of physical injury, Hailey could not claim emotional distress damages under the PLRA. The court also denied Hailey's request for declaratory relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    38 views8 pages

    Hailey v. Kaiser, 10th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes a case in which Ace Hailey, an inmate, brought a Section 1983 claim against prison officials for failing to protect him from another inmate, Hines, who had previously stabbed Hailey. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appeals court affirmed on the grounds that: 1) while factual disputes existed, Hailey was the aggressor in the altercation with Hines and therefore the defendants were not the proximate cause of Hailey's injuries; and 2) without a showing of physical injury, Hailey could not claim emotional distress damages under the PLRA. The court also denied Hailey's request for declaratory relief.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 8

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    NOV 8 1999

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    ACE D. HAILEY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,

    v.

    STEPHEN KAISER; TAYLOR


    CHANCELLOR, Chief of Security;
    ED HENNE, Alcohol and Drug
    Counselor of Pride Therapeutic
    Community,

    No. 99-7046
    (D.C. No. 97-CV-504-S)
    (E.D. Okla.)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before BRORBY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    Proceeding pro se, Ace Hailey appeals the district courts grant of summary
    judgment in favor of the defendants on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim, and its
    dismissal of his claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(i). We affirm.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is
    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
    and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
    judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
    conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    *

    Plaintiff-Appellant Ace Hailey is an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma


    Department of Corrections who is currently imprisoned at the Mack Alford
    Correctional Center in Stringtown, Oklahoma. (See Aplt. Br. at 9.) In September
    1997, Hailey brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for constitutional
    violations which allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated at the Davis
    Correctional Facility (DCF). He named as defendants Stephen Kaiser, DCF
    warden, and Taylor Chancellor, DCF Chief of Security.
    In October 1993, while incarcerated at Dick Conner Correctional Facility,
    Hailey was stabbed by a fellow inmate, Hines. Following this incident, both
    inmates were sent to different prisons. In April 1996, Hailey was transferred to
    DCF. Hines was then transferred to DCF in January 1997. When Hines arrived at
    DCF, officials noted that there was a request for protective measures against
    Hailey in Hines file. (See Martinez Report at 2.) Defendants allege that they
    telephoned the Department of Corrections Population Management Facility and
    learned that the protective order had expired two years earlier. (See Martinez
    Report at 2.) Following this telephone call, Defendant Chancellor contends he
    spoke with both Hines and Hailey and asked if either wanted to submit a request
    for protective measures. Both inmates declined the opportunity. (See id.) Hailey
    disputes the above facts. He contends that after he was notified that Hines had
    been transferred to DCF, he went to his counselor and requested that a
    -2-

    separatee be filed so that he would not come in contact with Hines. (See Aplt.
    Br. at 3.)
    Both parties agree, however, that on January 7, 1997 inmate Hines and
    Hailey were placed in the same yard. Hailey argues that while he was in the yard
    he heard rumors that Hines was trying to locate a knife. On his way to seek out a
    staff member, Hailey confronted Hines and an altercation ensued in which Hines
    was injured.
    In the Special Report, ordered by the district court 1, Hailey admits that he
    could have avoided the altercation and walked past Hines. (See Martinez Report
    at 4.) In addition, Hailey states in the report that he could not remember who
    threw the first punch, however, Defendant Chancellor states in the report that
    Hailey admitted to him that he had attacked Hines after he had flashbacks as a
    result of seeing Hines. (See id.) These facts were never disputed by Hailey in
    his response to the special report. Following the altercation, Hailey was placed in
    solitary, had his security points raised, had an entry of assault placed on his
    record, and was transferred to another prison.
    Hailey sued under 1983 claiming that Kaiser and Chancellor were
    deliberately indifferent to his safety and security, when they failed to keep Hines
    In May 1998, the district court ordered the officials involved in this civil
    rights action to prepare a special report pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d
    317 (10th Cir. 1978).
    1

    -3-

    and Hailey separated despite knowing that Hines had previously stabbed Hailey.
    Hailey claims that he suffered psychological injury and mental duress and was
    further injured by the addition of security points and an assault on his record
    which affect his possibility for parole.
    The district court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment and
    dismissed the case as frivolous. 2 We review a district courts grant of summary
    judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as applied by the district
    court. See Byers v. City of Albuquerque, 150 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 1998).
    Summary judgement is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
    interrogatories, and admission on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
    that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
    entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view the
    evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party. See Byers, 150 F.3d at 1274.
    A prison officials deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious
    harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
    825, 828 (1994). In Farmer v. Brennan, the Supreme Court defined deliberate
    Hailey filed a motion objecting to this court giving Appellees an
    extension of time in which to file their brief and file corrections to the brief. This
    extension of time was pursuant to an order issued by the clerk of the court. The
    clerk has discretion to grant extensions, and routinely grants an initial extension.
    Haileys motion is therefore denied.
    2

    -4-

    indifference to require a showing that the official was aware of facts from
    which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
    and he must also draw the inference. Id. at 837. The district court found that
    Hailey failed to show that the defendants knowingly and unreasonably disregarded
    an objectively intolerable risk. In reaching this conclusion, the district court
    seemed to resolve factual disputes in favor of the defendants based on the
    Martinez report. We have held that the Martinez report should be treated like an
    affidavit and the court is not authorized to accept the factual findings of the
    prison investigation when the plaintiff has presented conflicting evidence.
    Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1997). Here Haileys
    complaint was accompanied by a statement made by Hailey under penalty of
    perjury and therefore can be treated as an affidavit. Id. Haileys verified
    statements present factual disputes over whether he requested a separation order
    between himself and inmate Hines. If Hailey had requested the separation order
    and had not, as he claims, waived protective measures, then the placement of the
    two inmates in the same yard, given their past history, could be found to be
    deliberately indifferent.
    There is, however, a significant flaw in Haileys claim. We have
    recognized that in claims brought pursuant to 1983, tort law principles are
    applied. See Northington v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1568 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996).
    -5-

    We have therefore recognized that proximate cause is one of the requirements of a


    1983 claim. See Daniels v. Gilbreath, 668 F.2d 477, 480 (10th Cir. 1982). In
    this case, as the district court alternatively found, Hailey was the aggressor in the
    January 7, 1997 altercation between Hines and Hailey. Hailey admitted that he
    could have avoided Hines, but instead engaged him in an altercation which
    resulted in injury to Hines. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to say
    that the defendants were the proximate or legal cause of Hailey receiving security
    points and having an assault placed on his record. We therefore find the
    defendants are not liable for these injuries under 1983.
    When construing Haileys complaint liberally, as we must, 3 he seems to
    complain that he also suffered psychological and mental duress when he learned
    that Hines was in the prison yard with him. The Supreme Court has held that
    mental and emotional distress can constitute a compensable injury in suits for
    damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based upon violations of constitutional rights.
    Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1997). However the PLRA, the
    statute at issue in this case, states that [n]o Federal civil action may be brought
    We are required to construe a pro se complaint more liberally. This
    means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim
    on which the [appellant] could prevail, it should do so despite the [appellants]
    failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his
    poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading
    requirements. Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999)
    (quotations omitted).
    3

    -6-

    by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or


    emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical
    injury. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e). Therefore, although claims for mental and
    emotional distress can be brought pursuant to 1983, 1997e(e) provides that
    such a suit cannot stand unless the plaintiff has suffered a physical injury in
    addition to mental or emotional harms. Perkins v. Kansas Dept of Corrections,
    165 F.3d 803, 807 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Hailey cannot make this
    showing. He suffered no physical injury during the January 7, 1997
    confrontation, and without this showing he cannot maintain an action under
    1983 for emotional distress.
    Finally, Hailey also sought declaratory relief under his 1983 claim. In
    Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997), we cited the Eleventh
    Circuit case of McKinnon v. Talladega County, Alabama, 745 F.2d 1360 (11th
    Cir. 1984) with approval when discussing whether an action for declaratory relief
    was moot in a prisoner civil rights case. In McKinnon, the court stated that [t]he
    general rule is that a prisoners transfer or release from a jail moots his individual
    claim for declaratory . . . relief. Id. at 1363. Hailey was transferred to another
    prison after the January 1997 incident, thus his claim for declaratory relief is
    moot.

    -7-

    We, therefore, find that the district court properly granted the defendants
    motion for summary judgment.
    In granting this motion, the district court also dismissed the claim as
    frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(i). We review a dismissal of a claim as
    frivolous for an abuse of discretion. See Green v. Seymour, 59 F.3d 1073, 1077
    (10th Cir. 1995). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in
    fact or law. Id. (quotations omitted). Given that Hailey had no arguable claim
    under the law, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in
    dismissing the complaint as frivolous.
    For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court grant of
    summary judgment and dismissal as frivolous.
    The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge

    -8-

    You might also like