White v. Spells et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BUDDY LYNN WHITE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:22-06037-SOH-MEF
SERGEANT SPELL;
SUPERINTENDENT BYERS;
MS. VICKY RAWLINS (Inmate Grievance Coordinator)
(All of Arkansas Division of Correction Ouachita River
Unit) 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
Currently before the Court is the issue of damages to be awarded to Plaintiff upon the
Separate Defendant Sergeant Spell’s default in this case.1 	On April 20, 2023, Judge Hickey
entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to enter a Clerk’s Order of Default against Separate
Defendant Sgt. Spell in his individual capacity. (ECF No. 51). The Clerk’s Entry of Default was
entered that same day. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff and the Separate Defendants Byers and Rawlins
subsequently entered a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice on December 9, 2024. (ECF
No. 93). On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff appeared before the Court for a hearing pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) to present evidence on the issue of damages. (ECF No. 100). Counsel for the
Separate Defendants Byers and Rawlins also appeared. Byers and Rawlins were not present. (Id.).
1 Plaintiff entered a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Spell (ECF No. 95) after the
Default had already been granted. 	(ECF Nos. 51, 52). 	This Motion remains pending until the
issue of damages to be awarded for the default is determined.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
“When a default judgment is entered on a claim for an indefinite or uncertain amount of
damages, facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true, except facts relating to the amount of
damages, which must be proved in a supplemental hearing or proceeding.” Everyday Learning
Corp. v. Larson, 242 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2001). A Plaintiff must establish his or her damages
to a “reasonable degree of certainty.” Id. at 819. Plaintiff has presented evidence of his damages
under this standard. The Court found Plaintiff to be a credible witness.
In his verified Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Separate Defendant Sgt. Spell
sexually assaulted him four to five times over a 12-hour period “on or around about late February
to early March 2021,” while he was incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”)
Ouachita River Unit. (ECF No. 9 at 4). Plaintiff alleges Sgt. Spell used his position of authority
in the ADC to threaten Plaintiff with a disciplinary charge for smoking marijuana if he did not
submit to sexual activity with him. (Id.). Plaintiff states he is heterosexual but acquiesced to Sgt.
Spell’s demand because he wanted to go home. 	(Id. at 5-6). 	Plaintiff alleges Sgt. Spell then
fellated him and sodomized him with his finger(s). (Id.). Plaintiff alleges he was interviewed by
ADC Internal Affairs and passed a voice stress analysis examination concerning the assault. (Id.
at 4). Plaintiff alleges Sgt. Spell violated the Gender Motivated Violence Act when he sexually
assaulted him. (Id. at 13). Plaintiff further alleges that, after reporting the assault, he was moved
to a lower inmate status barracks, and ADC staff began to talk about the assault in violation of
PREA confidentiality policy. This resulted in him being labelled a snitch, and he was “violently
assaulted” by “N.A.E. gang members” in the new barracks, in part for getting an ADC officer
fired. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.2 (Id. at 14). He alleges he
2 Plaintiff also sought a transfer from the ADC Varner Unit to a “safer” Unit. 	Plaintiff is now
housed in the Ouachita River Unit.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
now suffers from depression, deep-seated anxiety, erectile dysfunction, flashbacks, severe
paranoia, and humiliation. (Id.).
At the damages hearing, Plaintiff was asked to describe how this incident impacted him,
what harm it had caused him, and to otherwise explain the damages he suffered from the incident.
Plaintiff repeatedly stated it was difficult for him to calculate an appropriate number for damages.
He testified he was still having issues dealing with the ADC staff and other inmates due to the
incident. He stated he had gotten beaten up “this month.” He testified he lived in constant fear
due to the snitch label on his inmate jacket, which he received for contacting the State Police
concerning Sgt. Spell. He also had to explain what had happened with Sgt. Spell to his family,
who were supportive. He testified he was locked down in Varner Supermax after the incident with
Sgt. Spell, where he was essentially “held hostage” because he was not eligible to see the Parole
Board when held in Isolation there.3 He testified addressing this issue was part of his settlement
with Separate Defendants Byers and Rawlins. He was a transferred out of Varner Supermax and
is now scheduled to come before the Parole Board in 60 days.
When asked specifically about medical issues, Plaintiff testified he believed Sgt. Spell had
given him hepatitis, but the ADC would not treat him for it. He stated he was constipated for a
year and a half after the incident. He continues to have bowel problems and says he has a knot in
his rectum. He stated this was not cancer, and he has been sent to outside medical providers for a
CT scan. Regarding his mental health, Plaintiff stated he saw mental health providers in the ADC
after the incident for approximately 45-60 days, and while he is no longer seeing mental health
providers, “some days are better than others.” 	One of his concerns about the incident is that it
3 Plaintiff explained that “you can’t get class if locked down, and if no class, you can’t see the
Parole Board.”
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
would “turn him gay.” He saw only ADC medical and mental health providers, and no evidence
of any medical expense was presented.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides, “[n]o Federal civil action may be
brought 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 or the
commission of a sexual act.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (emphasis added); see also McAdoo v. Martin,
899 F.3d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 2018) (“We interpret the PLRA to require more than a de minimis
physical injury.”). “Because a § 1983 action is a type of tort claim, general principles of tort law
require that a plaintiff suffer some actual injury before he can receive compensation.” Irving v.
Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff’s testimony that he was forced to engage in nonconsensual sexual activity at the
order of an ADC officer is sufficient to satisfy the PLRA’s physical injury or commission of a
sexual act requirement. See Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Certainly,
sexual or other assaults are not a legitimate part of a prisoner’s punishment, and the substantial
physical and emotional harm suffered by a victim of such abuse are compensable injuries.”).
Plaintiff testified that he felt he had no right to refuse an order from Sgt. Spell, an ADC officer.4
In his verified Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Sgt. Spell used his position of authority in
the ADC to threaten Plaintiff with a disciplinary charge for smoking marijuana if he did not submit
to sexual activity with him. Plaintiff further alleged that he was concerned that this disciplinary
4 Indeed, “many federal courts have questioned whether, due to the ‘enormous power imbalance,’
an inmate can voluntarily consent to engaging in sexual activity with a jail or prison employee.”
Moore v. King, Case No. 3:15CV00370 JTR, 2017 WL 6271468, at *4, n. 8 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 8,
2017) (citing Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046-48 (9th Cir. 2012); Graham v. Sheriff of
Logan Cnty., 741 F.3d 1118, 1124-26 (10th Cir. 2013); Caskey v. S. Dakota State Penn., No.
4:14CV04010, 2015 WL 7345763 at *21-22 (D.S.D. Sept. 29, 2015) (unpublished opinion)). The
court in Moore also noted that Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-14-127(a)(2) criminalizes sexual activity
between an ADC or county jail employee and an inmate or detainee as sexual assault in the fourth
degree – a Class D felony. Id.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
charge would prevent him from “going home.” 	Exhibits provided at the hearing by defense
counsel indicate the incident was referred to the Arkansas State Police for sexual misconduct after
an internal PREA investigation. Sgt. Spell resigned during the investigation. Plaintiff also testified
that the incident caused a delay in his eligibility to seek parole.
Plaintiff has presented credible evidence of the commission of an unlawful sexual act upon
him by Separate Defendant Sgt. Spell, resulting in some physical injury and emotional harm, and
an award of compensatory damages is appropriate.
Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages. The allegations of his verified Amended
Complaint were deemed admitted when entry of default was entered against Separate Defendant
Sgt. Spell and, therefore, Plaintiff was allowed to present proof to establish entitlement to punitive
damages at the damages hearing. See Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy, 2012 Ark. 202, *10 (2012) (citing
McCoy v. Montgomery, 370 Ark. 333, 259 S.W.3d 430 (2007) (An award of punitive damages is
justified where the evidence indicates that the defendant acted recklessly or wantonly in causing
the injury or with such conscious indifference to the consequences that malice may be inferred.))
The admitted allegations and the proof presented at the damages hearing support a finding that
Sgt. Spell knew or ought to have known, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, that his
conduct – repeated sexual assaults of the Plaintiff over approximately 12 hours – would naturally
and probably result in injury and harm to the Plaintiff, and that he continued the conduct with
reckless disregard for the consequences. An award of punitive damages is justified in this case.
Upon the evidence presented, it is RECOMMENDED that a default judgment be entered
in favor of Plaintiff against Separate Defendant Sergeant Spell, in his individual capacity, for
compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000.00, for punitive damages in the amount of
$10,000.00, plus his costs.5
5 Plaintiff proceeded IFP as a prisoner and has paid all court costs due for this case.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 31st day of March 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 101 Filed 03/31/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>