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.

Guerry v. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 24, 2017

BRIAN FRANK GUERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director; BRIAN GAGE, Warden; GUIFFRE, Worker; and THOMPSON, Worker; Defendants. BRIAN FRANK GUERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, in his individual capacity; FRANK HOPKINS, in his individual capacity; BRIAN GAGE, in his individual capacity; MICHELLE CAPPS, in her individual capacity; BUSBOOM, in his individual capacity; CHRISTOPHER CONNELLY, in his individual capacity; CRYSTAL REMPEL, in her individual capacity; JACOB BENTS, in his individual capacity; ANDREW KING, in his individual capacity; AUSTIN GOCKE, in his individual capacity; SHAW SHERMAN, in his individual capacity; CHRISTOPHER ULRICK, in his individual capacity; KEITH BROADFOOT, in his individual capacity; R. HOLLY, in his individual capacity; CHELSEA GUIFFRE, in her individual capacity; DANIEL THOMPSON, in his individual capacity; FLINN, in her individual capacity; and JOHN DOE(S), Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the court on case management. After Defendants' removal of Case No. 4:17CV3047, the court granted Defendants' motions to consolidate the above-captioned cases as to Guerry's federal constitutional claims and remanded Guerry's state law claims against Defendants to the District Court of Johnson County, Nebraska. (See Filing No. 11.) Case No. 8:15CV323, the non-removed case, has of course proceeded substantially further than Case No. 4:17CV3047. For clarity, the court now sets forth the federal constitutional claims in this consolidated matter.

         I. Case No. 8:15CV323

         The remaining claims from this case are Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against Defendants Scott Frakes, Brian Gage, Chelsea Guiffre, and Daniel Thompson for monetary damages in their individual capacities. (SeeFiling No. 33.) Guerry's underlying factual allegations are the same as those underlying his failure-to-protect claims in Case No. 4:17CV3047 below.

         II. Case No. 4:17CV3047 [1]

         A. Eighth Amendment Claims

         1. Failure to Protect

         Guerry asserts that Defendants[2] failed to protect him from gangs and fires during the prison riot at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution on May 10, 2015. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum and Order at Case No. 8:15CV323, Filing No. 13, this claim will not proceed against Defendants Keith Broadfoot and R. Holly. This claim will, however, proceed against all other Defendants.[3]

         2. Conditions of Confinement

         Guerry asserts that Defendants failed to move him out of his cell where he was exposed to burning plastic, oil water contaminated with blood, human waste, and sewage for four or more days following the prison riot. He asserts that his blankets, sheets, and bed contained blood of another inmate for a similar amount of time. He alleges that he had to eat and sleep in those conditions. This claim will proceed against Defendants.

         3. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

         Guerry alleges that certain Defendants denied him medical treatment for smoke inhalation and related symptoms for twenty-two days following the prison riot. He received treatment on June 2, 2015. Guerry fails to allege that he suffered any specific detrimental effect from the delay of medical treatment. See Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2006) (inmate claiming deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must allege that delay caused harm). This claim will not proceed.

         B. Equal Protection Claim

         Guerry asserts that certain Defendants violated his right to equal protection when they abandoned him and other protective custody inmates in Housing Unit 2-C during the prison riot. He alludes to overcrowding in Housing Unit 2-C as a reason for the violation when he alleges that the protective custody inmates in that unit had to double-bunk. Guerry, however, fails to allege that he was treated differently than others who were similarly situated to him, specifically, that he was treated differently than others in Housing Unit 2-C. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Dissimilar treatment of dissimilarly situated persons does not violate equal protection.”). He asserts in various parts of his complaint that Defendants moved inmates in Housing Units 2-A and B out of the conditions noted above, but prison officials could have had any number of reasons for moving those inmates sooner than those in Housing Unit 2-C and ...


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.