Lovell C. Sharpe v. Unknown Tyson and J. Winger

Sharpe v. Tyson · United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division · March 19, 2026 · No. 1:23-cv-117

Summary

The court grants defendant CO Tondalaya Tyson’s motion for summary judgment in a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment. The court dismisses the plaintiff’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot following his transfer and concludes that he failed to establish either the objective or subjective element of deliberate indifference. Judgment is ordered in favor of the defendants.

Holdings

  1. A prisoner's transfer to a different correctional facility moots claims for injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the conditions of confinement at the prior facility.
  2. To satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must show that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm; allegations of age disparity, disrespect, a conditional verbal threat, and unspecified gang connections were insufficient on this record.
  3. A prisoner must present specific facts showing that the official was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of harm and failed to take reasonable measures to abate it; vague requests to change cellmates and generalized statements about conflict do not establish deliberate indifference.
  4. A court may disregard a declaration that directly contradicts the plaintiff's earlier deposition testimony when the contradiction concerns material facts relevant to the claim.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Sharpe's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief concerning conditions at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility became moot after his transfer to another facility.
  2. Whether Sharpe presented sufficient evidence to establish the objective component of an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
  3. Whether Sharpe presented sufficient evidence that Tyson was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and failed to take reasonable measures to abate it.
  4. Whether Tyson was entitled to summary judgment on Sharpe's § 1983 failure-to-protect claim.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 478-79 (6th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • McLean v. 988011 Ontario Ltd., 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 289 (6th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Smith v. City of Salem, Ohio, 378 F.3d 566, 576 (6th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Jones v. Duncan, 840 F.2d 359, 360-61 (6th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984)(followed)
  • Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 829, 833-34, 844-45, 847 (1994)(followed)
  • Reedy v. West, 988 F.3d 907, 912 (6th Cir. 2021)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…