Hinkley v. Shumate et al, No. 4:2014cv05029 - Document 48 (E.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CC, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hinkley v. Shumate et al Doc. 48 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 No. JAMES HINKLEY, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 4:14-CV-05029-EFS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. ROD SHUMATE, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court, without oral argument, is the Defendant Rod 14 Shumate’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, ECF 15 No. 42. Plaintiff James Hinkley alleges that Mr. Shumate, as the manager 16 of Mr. Hinkley’s prison unit, was deliberately indifferent to his “basic 17 need of sleep condition,” causing wanton and unnecessary pain and 18 injuries 19 Specifically, Mr. Hinkley claims that his bed-mat was too thin, and he 20 was 21 additional, or new, mat. Id. at 6–11. 22 entitled to summary judgment because he protected by qualified immunity. 23 ECF No. 42 at 4. 24 qualified immunity bars Mr. Hinkley’s claims for damages. 25 further finds that Mr. Hinkley is not entitled to injunctive relief. in injured violation as a of result the of Eight Mr. Amendment. Shumate’s ECF failure No. to 8 at 10. provide an Mr. Shumate counters that he is The Court agrees with Mr. Shumate, and finds that The Court 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com I. 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 In March 2014, Mr. Hinkley originally brought this civil rights 3 action as an inmate of Washington State Penitentiary against multiple 4 prison officials, including Mr. Shumate. ECF No. 1. 5 complaint, Mr. Hinkley alleged that the prison unit’s hygiene customs 6 and bedding violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 8. 7 This Court dismissed the action, ECF No. 12, and the Ninth Circuit Court 8 of Appeals affirmed dismissal for all but one claim, stating: In his amended Dismissal of Hinkley’s inadequate bedding claim was proper as to [the other defendants] because Hinkley failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants knew that the prison’s single-mat policy presented an excessive risk of harm to Hinkley’s health and disregarded that risk. However, dismissal of Hinkley’s inadequate bedding claim as to defendant Shumate was premature because Hinkley alleged that Shumate failed to respond to his request for an additional mat. These allegations, liberally construed, were sufficient to warrant ordering Shumate to file an answer. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hinkley v. Shumate, 616 F. App'x 269, 270 (9th Cir. 2015); ECF No. 22 15 at 2–3 (citations and internal quotations omitted). This Court 16 therefore limits its analysis to whether Mr. Shumate’s failure to 17 provide an additional, or new, bed-mat entitles Mr. Hinkley to relief. 18 II. 19 FACTS OF THE CASE1 In early 2012, Mr. Hinkley was placed in the Washington State 20 21 Penitentiary’s BAR Unit. ECF No. 8 at 6. Mr. Shumate was the BAR Unit 22 manager, and responsible for setting standards within Mr. Hinkley’s 23 24 1 25 26 The Court views and recites the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Hinkley, as he is the party opposing summary judgment. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014). But see, LR 56.1(d) (allowing the Court to assume accuracy of moving party’s claimed facts which are left uncontroverted). ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2 1 unit. ECF No. 8 at 5. 2 a-half inches thick, ECF No. 43-1 at 3, but Mr. Hinkley alleges that 3 his mat, which was placed on a concrete bed, was as low as a quarter- 4 inch in the middle. ECF No. 8 at 6. 5 stay in the BAR Unit, Mr. Hinkley repeatedly received treated for 6 various medical conditions and injuries, many of which he now claims 7 were caused by the inadequacies of his bed-mat. 8 9 In late 2012, The standard-issue mat is listed as three-and- Mr. Hinkley As discussed below, during his suffered from exercise-induced rhabdomyolysis and leg pain as a result of doing too many squats during 10 a workout. ECF No. 43-1 at 35. Then, in May 2013, he was treated for 11 a left shoulder strain which, according to his medical records, occurred 12 while piling rocks for the fire in the sweat lodge, id. at 48, though 13 Mr. Hinkley now alleges his bed-mat caused the injury. ECF No. 8 at 7. 14 After a year, late in 2013, Mr. Hinkley reportedly submitted a 15 kite to Mr. Shumate requesting a new mat because of pain, but the kite 16 went unanswered. Id. at 51. 17 a formal complaint, asking for a different mat because of pain in his 18 shoulders, knees, and back. Id. at 41-42. 19 complaint was found “nongrievable” because he had not submitted the 20 complaint within 20 days of the “incident.” Id. at 41–43. 21 Grievance Program Manager informed Mr. Hinkley: “You might bring the 22 issue up to your tier representative. 23 extent to cause pain, you can kite your medical provider.” Id. at 43. Then, in early 2014, Mr. Hinkley submitted However, Mr. Hinkley’s Still, the If it has affected you to the 24 Near that same time, Mr. Hinkley reported to medical with a bruised 25 knee, and medical issued him an additional blanket to pad the wall and 26 “see if it helps to prevent injury from restless leg problems.” ECF No. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3 1 8 at 49–50. Medical also informed Mr. Hinkley that he should submit 2 another kite request for a new mat. ECF Nos. 8 at 52; 43-1 at 62. 3 Hinkley reportedly submitted a second medical kite to Mr. Shumate that 4 also went unanswered.2 ECF No. 8 at 52. Mr. 5 By mid-2014, shortly after he had filed this action, Mr. Hinkley 6 was receiving iron treatment which helped his restless leg syndrome, 7 but complained that he was still getting “intermittent” pain while 8 working or sleeping in his joints — specifically his knees, shoulders, 9 and hips. ECF No. 43-1 at 74, 85. When medical noted “no palpable, no 10 visible abnormality,” they ordered x-rays and blood tests. ECF No. 43- 11 1 at 85. 12 cervical spine stated: The report for the resulting five views of Mr. Hinkley’s FINDINGS: Spinal alignment is normal. No acute cervical spine fractures are seen. Vertebral bodies are normal in height. There is no suspicious lytic or scierotic osseous lesion. The paraspinal soft tissues are unremarkable. There is minimal disk height loss at C5-C6, indicating disc degeneration. Oblique vies show no definite bony neural foraminal stenosis. 13 14 15 16 17 ECF No. 43-1 at 87. The report for two views taken of Mr. Hinkley’s 18 right tibia fibula found: “No right fibial or fibular fracture or 19 dislocation. The ankle mortise is aligned. No significant degerative 20 or erosive changes of the knee medial and alteral compartment or 21 tibiotalar joint. No suspicious osseous lesion.” ECF No. 43-1 at 88. 22 The blood test results similarly showed his erythrocyte sedimentation 23 rate and rheumatoid factor were “both normal.” ECF No. 43-1 at 90. 24 25 26 2 Mr. Shumate states that he does not recall ever receiving either of the kites Mr. Hinkley claims to have sent him. ECF No. 27 at 3. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4 1 2 After reviewing the test results and x-rays, the treating physician 3 ordered “no specific medication nor follow up,” but indicated he would 4 consider more x-rays in the future if Mr. Hinkley kept reporting pain. 5 CF No. 43-1 at 90. 6 In February 2015, Mr. Hinkley was transferred out of the Bar Unit. 7 ECF No. 43-0 at 2. 8 He is currently housed at the Lincoln/RAP Work Release Facility. Id. 9 III. ANALYSIS 10 A. Summary Judgment Standard 11 Summary judgment is appropriate if there is "no genuine dispute 12 as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 13 matter of law.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Although a court views the 14 evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party while making 15 this determination, the party resisting summary judgment “may not rest 16 on conclusory allegations, but must set forth specific facts showing 17 that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 18 631 (9th Cir. 1988). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds 19 Mr. Hinkley failed to establish any genuine dispute as to the material 20 facts of his case. 21 B. Eighth Amendment Claim for Deliberate Indifference 22 23 24 25 [A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be 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. 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5 1 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 2 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes Mr. Shumate’s claim would 3 obviously fail if viewed as merely challenging the overall comfort of 4 his mat. 5 comfortable nor that they provide every amenity that one might find 6 desirable.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) 7 (internal quotations and citations omitted) cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 8 946 (2015). 9 deprivation of sleep, as he consistently reported sleeping well. See, 10 e.g., ECF No. 43-1 at 50, 52, 60; cf. Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 11 720 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[S]leep undoubtedly counts as one of life's basic 12 needs. . . .”). 13 leg symptoms and various injuries. 14 Shumate’s liability in the context of Mr. Hinkley’s medical needs and 15 treatment. “The Eighth Amendment requires neither that prisons be Further, Mr. Hinkley’s claim cannot reasonably be based on Mr. Hinkley’s claim is linked, however, to his restless The Court therefore analyzes Mr. 16 Mr. Hinkley’s kite requests — when viewed in his favor — arguably 17 imply Mr. Shumate was aware of both Mr. Hinkley’s medical issues and 18 his requests for an additional mat. 19 whether depriving Mr. Hinkley of an additional mat was “sufficiently 20 serious” to qualify as a denial of “the minimal civilized measure of 21 life’s necessities.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (internal citations and 22 quotation marks omitted). 23 whether Mr. Shumate is entitled to qualified immunity. 24 C. Qualified Immunity Instead, the Court need only determine If a prison official reasonably believes his conduct complies with 25 26 The Court need not decide, however, the law, qualified immunity applies; ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6 an official must have “fair 1 warning” that an action is unconstitutional before civil liability 2 attaches. See Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 3 2013). 4 reasonableness 5 standards. Id. 6 immunity, Mr. Hinkley must show “first, that he suffered a deprivation 7 of a constitutional or statutory right; and second that such right was 8 clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” Hamby v. 9 Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). The official’s of his immunity action, hinges considering on the the objective legal then-existing legal Thus, to defeat Mr. Shumate’s defense of qualified 10 “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear 11 that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is 12 doing violates that right.” Id. at 1090–91 (quoting Taylor v. Barkes, 13 135 S. Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015)). A plaintiff need not find a case directly 14 on 15 unconstitutionality of an official’s actions beyond debate when viewed 16 in the specific context of the case at hand. Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1090– 17 91. 18 at the time should have made clear to Mr. Shumate that his actions 19 violated the Constitution. See id. point, but the existing precedent must have placed the As such, Mr. Hinkley needed to prove the “precedent on the books” 20 Here, no legal precedent suggested — let alone clearly established 21 — that withholding a new or additional bed-mat would amount to a 22 constitutional 23 (analyzing cases involving mattress deprivation and concluding there 24 was no clearly established law). 25 into legal research and found the unreported case Finley v. Neven — 26 though not violation. binding See, precedent e.g., Chappell, 706 F.3d at 1061 Moreover, if Mr. Shumate had delved — ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7 it would have still supported a 1 reasonable belief that his actions were lawful. See 388 F. App'x 694, 2 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[P]risoners do not have a clearly established 3 right to sleep on a comfortable mattress.”). 4 Mr. Hinkley’s medical issues are certainly relevant to the Court’s 5 analysis. See Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1094–95 (“[O]ne can imagine a situation 6 where the officials’ conduct is so egregious that no one would defend 7 it, even if there were no prior holdings directly on point.”). 8 situation here was not so extreme. 9 Hinkley, yet no physician ever linked Mr. Hinkley’s symptoms to his mat, 10 let alone indicate it might “result in significant injury or the 11 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1081 12 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 13 directive that the bed-mat was the cause of Mr. Hinkley’s pain, Mr. 14 Shumate could have reasonably believed the mat affected comfort, but 15 did not create an “excessive risk” to Mr. Hinkley’s health or safety. 16 See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. But the Medical repeatedly treated Mr. Given no medical opinion or 17 Most people — especially given Mr. Hinkley’s symptoms — would 18 prefer more padding between themselves and a concrete bed. Nonetheless, 19 even if one decides Mr. Shumate erred by ignoring or refusing Mr. 20 Hinkley’s requests, this is far from finding Mr. Shumate should have 21 believed he was violating the Constitution. Cf. Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1095 22 (There is a “vast zone of conduct that is perhaps regrettable but is at 23 least arguably constitutional. 24 for the officials, they are entitled to qualified immunity.”). 25 the Court finds qualified immunity applies, and Mr. Shumate is not 26 liable for damages. So long as even that much can be said ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8 Thus, 1 D. Injunctive Relief 2 “Qualified immunity is only an immunity from a suit for money 3 damages, and does not provide immunity from a suit seeking declaratory 4 or injunctive relief.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 939–40 (9th Cir. 5 2012). 6 because Mr. Hinkley has moved to a different facility “and there is no 7 evidence that he is likely to again be subject to the challenged 8 conditions.” Brown v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 9 2014); see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) 10 (“Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a 11 similar way, [a prisoner] is no more entitled to an injunction than any 12 other citizen . . . .”). Injunctive relief is nonetheless inappropriate here, however, 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Even assuming arguendo the Court could find Mr. Hinkley’s bed-mat 15 was so inadequate as to violate the Eighth Amendment, the law was not 16 clearly established such that Mr. Shumate would have had fair notice of 17 as much. Therefore, the Court finds summary judgment is appropriate; 18 Defendant Shumate is protected by qualified immunity and Mr. Hinkley 19 lacks standing to seek the requested injunctive relief. 20 //// 21 //// 22 /// 23 /// 24 // 25 / 26 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter judgment in Defendant’s favor. 6 3. All pending dates and deadlines are STRICKEN. 7 4. The file shall be CLOSED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to all counsel and to Mr. Hinkley. DATED this __8th _ day of August 2016. 11 12 ________s/Edward F. Shea_____________________ EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\Hinkley;14-CV-5029.GrantSJ.LC1.docx ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
