MICHAEL T. HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
TOM KESSLER and MELODEE ARMFIELD, Defendants-Respondents.
Opinion No. 68
from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Daniel C. Hurlbutt, District
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, affirmed.
Michael T. Hayes, Boise, pro se appellant.
and Hales, P.C.; Jacob H. Naylor, Boise, for respondents.
T. Hayes appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgment on his 42 United States Code § 1983
claim in favor of Tom Kessler and Melodee Armfield. We
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
is an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction (IDOC). On October 23, 2013, Hayes brought a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
multiple violations of his constitutional rights.
original complaint named the following defendants:
Corrections Corporation of America, Idaho Correctional
Center, Tim Wengler, Dan Melody, Tom Kessler, Flemming Green,
Melodee Armfield, and Shane Jepsen. However, Hayes served his
complaint on only the Idaho Correctional Center, Kessler, and
Armfield. Counsel for the served defendants moved to dismiss
Hayes' claims against the unserved parties and filed a
motion to dismiss Hayes' claims against the Idaho
Correctional Center on the basis that a prison is not a
"person" for purposes of a § 1983 action.
Hayes responded to the motion to dismiss and also filed a
motion to amend his complaint. The district court denied
Hayes' motion to amend, as the served defendants had
already filed a responsive pleading. The district court
granted the motion to dismiss the unserved parties as well as
the Idaho Correctional Center.
remaining defendants, Kessler and Armfield (Respondents),
then filed a motion for summary judgment on the outstanding
claims. In support of their motion for summary judgment,
Respondents filed sworn declarations from Kessler, Armfield,
and an Idaho Correctional Center dentist who treated Hayes.
Hayes responded to the motion for summary judgment, but
included no sworn statements or other supporting evidence
with his response. The district court construed the remaining
claims to include Hayes' contention that his
constitutional rights were infringed upon when prison
employees refused to provide him with a dental pick, made
threatening and disparaging remarks toward him, and followed
unconstitutional disciplinary procedures. The district court
found that Hayes had failed to establish that he had suffered
a constitutional violation as to those claims against
Respondents. The district court granted Respondents'
motion for summary judgment. Hayes timely appeals.