Peter D. Goines Jr. v. Warden Adam Ogle, et al.

Summary

The memorandum addresses Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by an inmate alleging that York County Prison officials failed to protect him from an assault, failed to intervene, failed to train or supervise, and provided inadequate medical care. The court denies summary judgment on exhaustion grounds because a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether administrative remedies were properly exhausted. The court grants summary judgment on the failure-to-protect, failure-to-intervene, failure-to-train or supervise, and inadequate-medical-care claims to the extent addressed in the provided text.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was not warranted on exhaustion because the record presented a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Goines properly exhausted his administrative remedies.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Goines's failure-to-protect claim because the evidence did not show that they knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety.
3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-intervene claim because Goines produced no evidence that they had a realistic and reasonable opportunity to intervene.
4. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the failure-to-train or supervise claim because Goines offered only conclusory assertions and no evidence of deliberate indifference, a deficient training or supervision program, a pattern of constitutional violations, or a highly predictable single-incident violation.
5. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the inadequate-medical-care claim because the evidence showed prompt treatment and did not establish deliberate indifference by the nonmedical defendants.
6. Goines failed to establish a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because the alleged lack of care amounted, at most, to negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Goines exhausted available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
2. Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by failing to protect Goines from the inmate assault.
3. Whether defendants failed to intervene in the assault despite having a realistic and reasonable opportunity to do so.
4. Whether defendants were liable under Section 1983 for failing to train or supervise prison staff or for inadequate inmate classification, monitoring, or staffing.
5. Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Goines's serious medical needs.
6. Whether the alleged conduct violated Goines's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Disposition

other