United States District Court, D. Nevada
TERRIE L. SENA, Plaintiff(s),
OFFICER COLEMAN, et al., Defendant(s).
before the court is defendants corrections officer Nicole
Coleman (“Coleman”) and corrections officer
Zippora Clinkscales's (“Clinkscales”)
(collectively “defendants”) motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff Terrie L. Sena
(“plaintiff”) filed a response (ECF No. 38), to
which defendants replied (ECF No. 43).
was a pretrial detainee in protective custody at the Clark
County Detention Center (“CCDC”). (ECF No. 38).
Plaintiff was housed in the protective custody unit in a cell
with Christine Allen (“Allen”). Id.
Plaintiff was in protective custody due to the nature of the
charges filed against her. (ECF No. 35).
April 10, 2015 at around 6:30 p.m., Clinkscales was advised
by the CCDC switchboard that plaintiff's husband called
and advised them that plaintiff told him she was being
threatened by her cellmate. Id.
and Officer Sua investigated the call and took plaintiff and
her cellmate, Allen, out of the cell individually to
interview them. Id. Allen told Clinkscales that
plaintiff snored and as a result, Allen had told plaintiff to
shut up and at times, hit the bottom of plaintiff's bunk
in an effort to get plaintiff to stop snoring. Id.
Plaintiff corroborated Allen's statements, but did not
tell Clinkscales that Allen ever threatened her. Id.
When asked why she had told her husband that she had been
threatened, plaintiff told Clinkscales that she was nervous
because of the snoring situation. Id.
advised plaintiff and Allen that when room in another cell
opened up, she would move one of them. Id.
Clinkscales did not believe Allen had made any physical
threats nor that there had been any other issues between
plaintiff and Allen apart from plaintiff's snoring.
Id. Further, Clinkscales was not aware of any
history of violence on the part of either inmate.
April 10, 2015, plaintiff alleges she was present when other
inmates informed Clinkscales that plaintiff needed to be
moved because Allen was planning to do something to
plaintiff. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff also alleges that she was
present when another inmate informed Clinkscales of
Allen's violent history. Id. Defendants argue
these claims are entirely unsubstantiated. (ECF No. 35).
April 11, 2015, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Clinkscales
responded to screams coming from plaintiff's cell.
Id. Clinkscales found Allen standing in front of the
door and plaintiff on the cell floor holding her head.
Id. Plaintiff told Clinkscales that Allen had pulled
her hair, kicked her, and hit her for no reason. Id.
Allen told Clinkscales that plaintiff had started the fight
by hitting first. Id. Both plaintiff and Allen were
disciplined for their participation in the fight.
Id. Finding no marks on Allen, Clinkscales removed
her from the cell and placed her in detention. Id.
Clinkscales notified medical after observing swelling on
plaintiff's face. Id. After being checked and
cleared by medical personnel, plaintiff was returned to her
alleges that prior to her meeting with Clinkscales on April
10, 2015, she approached Coleman with a grievance regarding
issues she was having with Allen. Id. Plaintiff
alleges the grievance indicated Allen was verbally abusing
her, causing her to lose sleep, and beginning to hit things
in the room, which made plaintiff nervous. (ECF No. 38).
Plaintiff alleges she handed the grievance to Coleman who
read the grievance and then returned it back to plaintiff.
(ECF No. 35). Coleman has no recollection of receiving or
reading a grievance from plaintiff that day, but Coleman
receives grievances on a daily basis. Id.
very common for her to review inmate grievances and then to
respond appropriately. Id. Coleman receives many
requests to change cells and part of her job is to evaluate
whether a move is warranted. Id. Coleman approves
such moves if the inmate has been physically abused or
threatened with physical violence. Id.
was not aware of any issues between plaintiff and Allen, nor
was she aware of any history on Allen's part of attacking
other inmates. Id. In fact, both Coleman and
Clinkscales had been on duty in the unit where plaintiff
housed for the duration of plaintiff's incarceration.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims . . . .” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323- 24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to be entitled to a denial of summary judgment, the
non-moving party must “set ...