Case 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD Document 61 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 530
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD
`
`
`CHARLES DAWSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT E. CARTER,
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`DICK BROWN,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`RANDALL PARCEL,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`For the reasons explained in this Entry, plaintiff Charles Dawson's motion for summary
`
`judgment, dkt. [39], is denied.
`
`I. Background
`
`Plaintiff Charles Dawson is a prisoner confined at all relevant times at the Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility (Wabash Valley). He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against
`
`defendants Charles Dugan, Dick Brown, Jerry Snyder, and Randall Parcel.1 Mr. Dawson alleges
`
`that he has been on Department Wide Administrative Segregation (DWAS) since October 31,
`
`2018, and has received nothing but perfunctory 30-day reviews, about which he learns only after
`
`the fact. Dkt. 7 (Screening Entry). He also alleges that the conditions of confinement in segregation
`
`violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id.
`
`
`1 Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants Robert E. Carter and Jack Hendrix on December
`17, 2020. Dkt. 60.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD
`
`
`CHARLES DAWSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT E. CARTER,
`CHARLES DUGAN,
`DICK BROWN,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`RANDALL PARCEL,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`For the reasons explained in this Entry, plaintiff Charles Dawson's motion for summary
`
`judgment, dkt. [39], is denied.
`
`I. Background
`
`Plaintiff Charles Dawson is a prisoner confined at all relevant times at the Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility (Wabash Valley). He brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against
`
`defendants Charles Dugan, Dick Brown, Jerry Snyder, and Randall Parcel.1 Mr. Dawson alleges
`
`that he has been on Department Wide Administrative Segregation (DWAS) since October 31,
`
`2018, and has received nothing but perfunctory 30-day reviews, about which he learns only after
`
`the fact. Dkt. 7 (Screening Entry). He also alleges that the conditions of confinement in segregation
`
`violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Id.
`
`
`1 Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants Robert E. Carter and Jack Hendrix on December
`17, 2020. Dkt. 60.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD Document 61 Filed 01/11/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 531
`
`The defendants have responded, dkt. [52-53] and Mr. Dawson did not reply. The motion is
`
`ripe for resolution.
`
`II. Summary Judgment Standard
`
`A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because
`
`there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). On summary judgment, a party must show the Court
`
`what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events. Gekas
`
`v. Vasilades, 814 F.3d 890, 896 (7th Cir. 2016). The moving party is entitled to summary judgment
`
`if no reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570
`
`F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party
`
`must set forth specific, admissible evidence showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
`
`The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws
`
`all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717
`
`(7th Cir. 2018). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment
`
`because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hosps. Corp., 892
`
`F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2018).
`
`The Court need only consider the cited materials, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly assured the district courts that they are not required to
`
`"scour every inch of the record" for evidence that is potentially relevant to the summary judgment
`
`motion before them. Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d 562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD Document 61 Filed 01/11/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 532
`
`III. Discussion
`
`Mr. Dawson alleges that his case is "100% identical to Isby v. Brown, et al., 1:12-cv-116-
`
`JMS-MJD," dkt. 39 at 11, in which the Court, after a two-day bench trial, found due process
`
`violations against the defendants who had confined Mr. Isby in DWAS for more than a decade
`
`without due process. Isby at dkt. 274. In support of Mr. Dawson's motion for summary judgment,
`
`he cites to testimony that was given in the 2018 Isby trial, but none of that testimony related to Mr.
`
`Dawson. In addition, at the time he filed this action, May 7, 2019, dkt. 1, Mr. Dawson had not
`
`been confined in DWAS for years, but for months. Moreover, the reasons he was placed in DWAS
`
`and kept there are different than those presented in Isby. Dkt. 52-2. His case is not 100% identical
`
`to Isby.
`
`"The Supreme Court held in Hewitt [v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983)] that the Due Process
`
`Clause mandates that prison officials periodically review whether an inmate placed in
`
`administrative segregation continues to pose a threat." Isby v. Brown, 856 F.3d 508, 524 (7th Cir.
`
`2017). "[A] meaningful review ... is one that evaluates the prisoner's current circumstances and
`
`future prospects, and, considering the reason(s) for his confinement to the program, determines
`
`whether that placement remains warranted." Id. at 527 (internal quotation omitted).
`
`Mr. Dawson alleges that he "never received a (30) day review" in accordance with Indiana
`
`Department of Correction policy, dkt. 39 at 9, and yet he submitted copies of three monthly
`
`Wabash Valley Secured Housing Unit Department Administrative Restrictive Status Housing
`
`Review forms dated November 2018, January 2019, and February 1, 2019, respectively. Dkt. 40
`
`at 3-5. The defendants also submitted evidence of additional monthly reviews. Dkt. 52-2. A
`
`genuine issue of material fact remains, however, whether such reviews were "meaningful" for
`
`purposes of due process.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00222-JPH-MJD Document 61 Filed 01/11/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 533
`
`Mr. Dawson has not designated any evidence in support of his Eighth Amendment claims.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`In sum, Mr. Dawson has not shown that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`Therefore, his motion for summary judgment, dkt. [39], is denied.
`
`
`
`The clerk is directed to terminate Robert E. Carter and Jack Hendrix as defendants on the
`
`docket.
`
`
`
`The Magistrate Judge is requested to set this matter for a status conference to determine
`
`whether Mr. Dawson's claims will be resolved through settlement or trial.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`CHARLES DAWSON
`162406
`NEW CASTLE - CF
`NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`1000 Van Nuys Road
`NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
`
`All electronically registered counsel
`
`Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Date: 1/11/2021
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
