Campbell v. Oklahoma County Detention Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-399-R
)
WILLIAM MONDAY et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Campbell, a state prisoner appearing
pro se and
in forma pauperis,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional
rights. (ECF No. 25). The matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge
for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants Turn Key Health, Mark
Winchester, Amanda Jackson, and Othella Capehart (“The Turn Key Defendants”) (ECF
No. 75). Defendants have filed a response. (ECF No. 80). For the following reasons, it is
recommended that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED.
I. ISSUES PRESENTED
As stated by Plaintiff, four claims remain against The Turn Key Defendants:
• An individual capacity claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against
Defendant Winchester for deliberate indifference based on a “failure to
treat” theory;
• An individual capacity claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against
Defendant Jackson for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
needs under a “gatekeeper” theory;
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 114 Filed 06/28/24 Page 1 of 5

2
• An individual capacity claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against
Defendant Capehart for deliberate indifference based on a “failure to treat”
theory; and
• A municipal liability claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against Turn
Key for a delay/denial of pain medication.
See ECF No. 75:1-2;
see also ECF Nos. 64 & 71.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is a means of testing in advance of trial whether the available
evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of the party asserting a claim.
The Court must grant summary judgment when “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(a). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence
and the inferences drawn from the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.
Pepsi–Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc ., 431 F.3d 1241, 1255
(10th Cir.2005). While the Court construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, such a
litigant nevertheless is held to the same rules of procedure as are binding on other
litigants.
See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007).
A party that moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that the
undisputed material facts require judgment as a matter of law in its favor.
Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). If this burden is met, the non-movant must
come forward with specific facts, supported by admissible evidence, which demonstrate
the presence of a genuine issue for trial.
Comm. for First Amendment v. Campbell, 962
F.2d 1517, 1526 n.11 (10th Cir. 1992). Although all facts are construed in favor of the
non-movant, he still has a responsibility to “go beyond the pleadings and designate
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 114 Filed 06/28/24 Page 2 of 5

3
specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to [his] case in order to survive summary judgment.”
Johnson v. Mullin, 422
F.3d 1184, 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A pro se non-movant must “identify specific facts that show the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact.”
Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1164
(10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conclusory allegations are
insufficient to establish an issue of fact that would defeat the motion.
Llewellyn v. Allstate
Home Loans, Inc., 711 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir. 2013).
Parties may establish the existence or nonexistence of a material disputed fact
through:
• citation to “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits
or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials” in the record; or
• demonstration “that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B).
And while the court liberally construes a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, that plaintiff
must adhere to the same rules of procedure that are binding on all litigants.
Kay v. Bemis,
500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir.2007). Thus, strict adherence by a pro se plaintiff to the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is required. With respect to those requirements, the
Supreme Court instructs that the plain language of Rule 56 . . . mandates the entry of
summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party
who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 114 Filed 06/28/24 Page 3 of 5

4
to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). In such a situation, there can be “no
genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts
immaterial.
Id.
III. DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff outlines the appropriate standard
of review, and then proceeds to rely on statements—presumably for his “undisputed
material facts”—made by the undersigned in a Report and Recommendation dated
September 29, 2023.
See ECF No. 75:2-3. These statements, however, are not the type
of “evidence” contemplated by Rule 56, nor are they dispositive findings, as the document
was a recommendation, as opposed to a final judgment. Mr. Campbell also contends that
a “bold confession of Defendant Capehart,”
see ECF No. 75:3, entitles him to Summary
Judgment, but the Court disagrees. According to Plaintiff, a statement by Defendant
Capehart on page 15 of ECF No. 40 regarding Turn Key’s policies “prevented Mr. Capehart
from providing Plaintiff’s medications.” (ECF No. 75:3). Plaintiff does not state what,
exactly, the “bold confession of Defendant Capehart,” was, but a review of the document
and page number cited by Plaintiff reveals the following—the only relevant sentence on
the page:
Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations as to medication pass against Mr. Capehart
are that he could not walk Plaintiff’s medications to him in his cell due to
jail policy—obviously due to safety reasons—and that detention staff, who
were allegedly responsible for carrying the medications inside the inmate’s
cell, failed to do so.
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 114 Filed 06/28/24 Page 4 of 5

5
(ECF No. 40:15). This sentence, however, offered in support of The Turn Key Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, merely reiterated
Mr. Campbell’s allegations, and was not a statement
which would entitle Plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law.
Based on the foregoing, the Court should conclude that Mr. Campbell is not entitled
to summary judgment against The Turn Key Defendants, as genuine issues of material
facts exist on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against these Defendants.
IV. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
It is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 75)
be DENIED.
Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by July 15, 2024, in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make
timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review
of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120,
1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
V. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation does not terminate the referral by the District
Judge in this matter.
ENTERED on June 28, 2024.
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 114 Filed 06/28/24 Page 5 of 5