Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Green v. French

June 25, 2007

TODD GREEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAYNE FRENCH, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge

ORDER

This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. [d/e 15].

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that Defendant Correctional Officer Wayne French violated his constitutional rights at the Lawrence Correctional Center. The plaintiff claims the defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment.

Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint alleges that the plumbing in the cell above him broke and his cell was flooded with urine and feces. The plaintiff says he told the defendant about it, but he refused to have anyone clean it up and refused to give the plaintiff the "proper outfit or information to clean it properly." (Comp, p. 4). The plaintiff says his cell stayed in this condition for three days.

The plaintiff next says the defendant retaliated against him. It is not entirely clear the basis of this claim from the plaintiff's complaint. He states the plaintiff retaliated against him for "refusing to clean and asking for grievances officer instructed me it was and is prison policy if I get grievance he has to issue me Todd Green tickets." (Comp, p. 4)

II. FACTS

The following facts are taken from the defendant's motion and attachments and the plaintiff's responses.

The plaintiff was incarcerated at the Lawrence Correctional Center in Cell R-6-BL-12 on June 18, 2004. On this day, the plumbing in the cell above the plaintiff broke causing the plaintiff's cell to flood. The defendant states that the problem was corrected when the water was turned off in the problem cell.

The plaintiff says he reported the flooding problem to Defendant French on his way to breakfast and told the officer he needed to have someone come clean his cell. (Plain. Depo, p. 7). The plaintiff says when he returned from breakfast fifteen to thirty minutes later, his cell had not been cleaned. (Plain, Depo. ,p. 8). The plaintiff says he was told the only way his cell was going to be cleaned is if he cleaned it himself. The plaintiff says he did not believe he had the proper training to clean the cell since he felt it was a bio-hazard so he did not ask for cleaning supplies. (Plain. Depo, p. 9).

Defendant French claims that when the plaintiff told him about the water in his cell, the defendants offered him cleaning supplies, rubber gloves and a mop to clean it up.

He refused and said he wanted an inmate porter to clean it up. I explained to Plaintiff Green that no other inmate is permitted to enter his cell. Water on the floor is a safety hazard, so I gave Plaintiff Green a direct order to clean up the water in his cell. Plaintiff Green refused, and I issued him a disciplinary report charging 304- Insolence, 403- Disobeying a Direct Order and 402- Health, Smoking or Safety Violation. (Green Aff, Ex. B, p.1)

The defendant does not state what happened with the disciplinary ticket.

The plaintiff states he did not ask for an inmate porter to clean his cell, but instead asked for a "trained individual" to clean his cell. (Resp., p. 1) The plaintiff admits he was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.