Brush v. Burgess , 177 F. App'x 805 ( 2006 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 1, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
PETER JAMES BRUSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-6301
MIKE BURGESS and TERRAL (D.C. No. CIV-04-0491-HE)
PERRY, (W. D. Oklahoma)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is,
therefore, ordered submitted without oral argument.
Peter Brush, an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Custer County Sheriff
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mike Burgess and Undersheriff Terral Perry on Brush’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint. Brush primarily alleged that: (1) Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff
Perry were deliberately indifferent to his safety in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments because an inmate assaulted him while he was in custody
as a pretrial detainee at the Custer County Jail; and (2) his placement in
segregation at the Clinton City Jail following the assault violated his Fourteenth
Amendment due process and equal protection rights. Brush requested actual and
punitive damages for his injuries, as well as an order capping the Custer County
Jail population and requiring additional personnel and cameras to monitor the cell
blocks. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
I.
On April 20, 2003, during Brush’s pretrial detainment at the Custer County
Jail, Brush suffered wounds to his face and head as a result of an altercation with
another inmate over a food tray. The jail officer on duty instructed both inmates
to stop fighting, but was forced to call for back-up in order to subdue them. After
Brush received medical treatment at a local hospital, he was transferred to the
Clinton City Jail. Brush was placed in segregation at the Clinton City Jail for
approximately three weeks. 1
1
The record reflects that Brush is currently incarcerated at the Howard
McLeod Correctional Center in Atoka, Oklahoma.
-2-
II.
“We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same legal standard used by the district court.” Bennett v. Coors Brewing Co.,
189 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending
the entry of summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff
Perry in their official and individual capacities. Specifically, the magistrate judge
concluded that Brush did not establish that Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff
Perry were deliberately indifferent to his safety because Brush never informed
them that he feared for his safety, Brush’s allegation that the other inmate had a
violent history was conclusory, and Brush acknowledged in deposition that the
fight “was spur of the moment.” Additionally, the magistrate judge reasoned that
Brush failed to offer evidence connecting the wrongs he complained of to a
custom or policy of Custer County. As regards Brush’s due process and equal
protection claims, the magistrate judge noted that Brush’s summary judgment
response brief made only a single reference to his brief segregation at the Clinton
City Jail, and thus, Brush failed to provide sufficient factual support and
-3-
argument for his claims. Lastly, the magistrate judge concluded that Brush’s
claims for injunctive relief were moot because he no longer resided at the Custer
County Jail. After conducting a de novo review, the district court adopted the
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
On appeal, Brush raises only two arguments. 2 First, Brush argues that
Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry violated his due process rights when they
failed to house him separately from the inmate who assaulted him. Brush claims
that the Custer County Jail’s policy mandates that “unsentenced prisoners shall be
separated from sentenced prisoners.” He suggests that the assault would not have
occurred if Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry had followed this policy
because the inmate who assaulted him was a sentenced prisoner. We reject
Brush’s argument because the Custer County Jail policy does not require pretrial
detainees to be separated from sentenced prisoners. The applicable regulation
provides: “Unsentenced prisoners shall be separated from sentenced prisoners, to
the extent possible, and shall be permitted whatever confinement is least
restrictive unless prisoner behavior or other security considerations dictate
otherwise.” Okla. Admin. Code § 310:670-5-5 (2005) (emphasis added). 3
Further, we note that Brush does not claim that Sheriff Burgess or Undersheriff
2
We agree with the magistrate judge’s application of the law and facts as to
the claims Brush failed to raise on appeal.
3
The record indicates that the Custer County Jail utilizes this regulation as
part of its policy and procedure regarding minimum jail standards.
-4-
Perry disregarded this regulation or otherwise failed to make a good faith effort to
place him with other pretrial detainees.
Second, Brush contends that Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry
violated his due process and equal protection rights because he was neither
advised of the reasons for his three weeks of administrative segregation at the
Clinton City Jail, nor afforded an opportunity to challenge the propriety of his
placement in segregation. In response, Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry
assert that these claims must be dismissed for lack of personal participation. See
Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Personal
participation is an essential allegation to a § 1983 claim.”) (quotation omitted).
We agree. Brush has not alleged that Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry
operated or maintained the Clinton City Jail, let alone that either officer made the
decision to place him in segregation at the Clinton City Jail. Rather, Brush has
only alleged that Sheriff Burgess and Undersheriff Perry were responsible for the
supervision of the Custer County Jail.
AFFIRMED. We further remind Brush that he remains obligated to pay the
appellate filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-5-