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.

Taylor v. Board of County Comm'rs of Sedgwick County

United States District Court, D. Kansas

November 19, 2014

JEFFERY S. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KS, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jeffery S. Taylor, currently an inmate at the Norton Correctional Facility, brings this action against defendants Robert Hinshaw, the Sedgwick County Sheriff during plaintiff's incarceration at the Sedgwick County Detention Center (the "County Jail"); Jeff Easter, the current Sedgwick County Sheriff; Sedgwick County, Kansas (collectively, "the Sedgwick County defendants"); and defendant David E. Kendall, then a detention deputy at the County Jail. Plaintiff brings three claims (Counts I-III) against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and three claims (Counts IV-VI) under the Kansas Tort Claims Act.

The Sedgwick County defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33). Defendant Kendall brought a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35), which merely incorporates the Sedgwick County defendants' motion. The court considers defendants' motions for summary judgment. Defendants argue plaintiff's claim is barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

I. Facts

Plaintiff alleges that, on June 3, 2012, while a prisoner at the County Jail, he was subjected to unwanted sexual contact by defendant Kendall. While the details of the incident are immaterial to resolve the issues currently before the court, the immediate aftermath, which is uncontroverted, is relevant:

• Plaintiff immediately banged on the cell door and repeatedly screamed "you raped me, you raped me."
• Defendant Kendall exited the cell before plaintiff could escape and shut the cell door. He then told plaintiff "this was a mistake, " and "we don't have to do this, I can get you whatever you want. Please don't do this."
• Sergeant Hayes and Deputy Reed responded to the commotion and observed plaintiff standing nude in his cell, restrained with handcuffs. Plaintiff told Sergeant Hayes that defendant Kendall had raped him, after which defendant Kendall's handcuffs were removed from plaintiff's wrists and he was allowed to dress.
• Plaintiff was taken to Via Christi St. Joseph Hospital, where a SANE-SART[1] kit was completed by the nurse, and swabs and samples were collected and sent to the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center. After this examination, plaintiff returned to the County Jail.

On June 11, 2012, plaintiff issued an electronic inmate request stating: "i do not feel safe NOWHERE in this jail!!! i was RAPED by a deputy!!! pleeeaaassseee get me out!!!"[2] A jail sergeant responded that plaintiff had been moved from the pod in which the alleged incident happened. On June 13, 2012, plaintiff again used the electronic inmate request system, complaining "I HAVE BEEN THREATENED BY SEVERAL INMATES IN POD2!!! PLEASE GET ME OUT OF HERE!!! I DO NOT FEEL SAFE ANYWHERE IN THIS JAIL!!!!." A jail sergeant responded by explaining that, because plaintiff felt threatened in the County Jail, he was placed in lockdown for his own safety.[3] On June 15, 2012, defendant was transferred to another detention facility. On July 24, 2012, plaintiff's then-counsel served a Notice of Claim pursuant to K.S.A. § 12-105b. Sedgwick County denied plaintiff's Notice of Claim on November 20, 2012.

This suit was filed on June 2, 2014.

II. Legal Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, the court views the record's evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the ...


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.