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.

Hankins v. Anderson

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

March 29, 2019

RONNIE HANKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP ANDERSON, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 62] and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary judgment, [Doc. No. 65]. The parties respectively oppose the others' motions. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is granted; Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

         Facts and Background

          Defendant has, in accordance with the Court's Local Rules, submitted a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts. Plaintiff has responded to the Motion, but has failed to support his response with specific citations to the record. Plaintiff failed to submit a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-401(E) of this Court's Local Rules, Defendants' facts are deemed admitted. Local Rule 7-401(E) provides:

Rule 7 - 4.01 Motions and Memoranda.
(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.

Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874, 881 (8th Cir. 2014) (“If the opposing party does not raise objections to a movant's statement of facts as required by Local Rule 4.01(E), “a district court will not abuse its discretion by admitting the movant's facts.”); Ridpath v. Pederson, 407 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir. 2005) (where plaintiff did not convert defendant's statement of material fact, it was deemed admitted under E.D. Mo. Local Rule 4.01(E)); see also, Holloway v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Cause No. 18-1580, p. 3 (8th Cir. March 28, 2019)(per curium)(“In light of [Plaintiff's] failure to comply with Rule 7-4.01(E), we conclude that the district did not abuse its discretion by admitting [Defendant's] statement of facts. See Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874, 881 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing the plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 7-4.01(E) and concluding that “[i]f no objections have been raised in the manner required by the local rules, a district court will not abuse its discretion by admitting the movant's facts”)).

         Plaintiff is currently serving a life sentence at Southeast Corrections Center, but the events at issue took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, and Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deprived Plaintiff of toothpaste for a period of roughly six weeks from October 7, 2015 to November 20, 2015. He claims that this deprivation cause swelling and infection in Plaintiff's face and gums.

         Defendant Webb was employed as a Corrections Officer II at ERDCC when the events giving rise to this action transpired. Defendant Crews was employed as a Corrections Case Manager I at ERDCC when the events transpired.

         Plaintiff was assigned to administrative segregation as a new arrival to ERDCC in October of 2015. Plaintiff had no toothpaste on October 7, 2015, as he was separated from his property being held in the property room and was not given any state issued toothpaste.

         Offenders typically get toothpaste from the canteen. ERDCC policy requires offenders to purchase hygiene items from the canteen unless they have (1) insufficient funds to do so (2) because they spent their “entire monthly wage on needed legal postage or legal supplies.” Toothpaste was available for purchase from the prison canteen at the price of $1.78. The State gave Plaintiff a monthly allowance of $7.50 to purchase items of his choice from the prison canteen. Plaintiff receives additional canteen funds from his family.

         Plaintiff was aware that he could purchase toothpaste from the canteen. On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff went to the prison canteen with $22.29 in his account. Plaintiff purchased cheese spread, cappuccino, hot cocoa, coffee, ramen, peanut butter, jelly, crackers, and chips. He did not purchase toothpaste. Plaintiff left the prison canteen that day with $5.76 in his account.

         On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff went to the prison canteen with $8.76 in his account. Plaintiff purchased a legal pad, two pens, and five envelopes, but did not purchase toothpaste. ...


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.