United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
D. CAIN, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary
Judgment [doc.7] filed by defendants Tony Mancuso and Scot
Nugent, in response to the civil rights suit filed in this
court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law by plaintiff
Shannon Reeves. The motion is opposed and is now ripe for
suit arises from plaintiffs treatment at the hands of unknown
officers at Calcasieu Correctional Center ("CCC").
Plaintiff alleges as follows: He was booked into that
facility on or about June 11, 2018, and alerted officers that
he had medical needs relating to injuries, including head
trauma, that he sustained in a car accident. Doc. 1,
¶¶ 6-8. Plaintiff complained when officers moved
him to a cell without a bottom bunk and told them that he
could not climb into a top bunk due to his injuries.
Id. at ¶ 9. The officers mocked him, and
plaintiff admits that he responded rudely. Id. at
¶¶ 9-10. Three officers then beat plaintiff,
throwing him to the ground and aggravating his injuries.
Id. at ¶¶ 10- 12. After the beating,
plaintiff was placed in solitary confinement and denied
medical care. Id. at ¶ 13. He filed an inmate
complaint with Internal Affairs, but the complaint was not
investigated. Id. at ¶ 14.
filed suit in this court against the three unknown officers,
in their individual capacities, and Sheriff Tony Mancuso and
CCC Warden Scot Nugent, in their official capacities. He
seeks monetary relief from all defendants under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, based on the alleged violations of his
constitutional rights, and state tort law. Defendants Mancuso
and Nugent now move to dismiss the matter under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment under Rule 56. Doc. 7. They allege that
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as
required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ l997e. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
Motion for Summary Judgment Standards
resolution of this motion involves consideration of
defendants' extra-record evidence, the court considers
the claim as a motion for summary judgment. A court should
grant a motion for summary judgment when 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The party moving for summary
judgment is initially responsible for identifying portions of
pleadings and discovery that show the lack of a genuine issue
of material fact. Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45
F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995). The court must deny the motion
for summary judgment if the movant fails to meet this burden.
movant makes this showing, however, the burden then shifts to
the non-moving party to "set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986) (quotations omitted). This requires more than mere
allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings.
Instead, the nonmovant must submit "significant
probative evidence" in support of his claim. State
Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th
Cir. 1990). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is
not significantly probative, summary judgment may be
granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (citations
may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence
in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
(2000). The court is also required to view all evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Clift v.
Clift, 210 F.3d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2000). Under this
standard, a genuine issue of material fact exists if a
reasonable trier of fact could render a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Brumfleld v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322,
326 (5th Cir. 2008).