Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MITCHELL BRADLEY ISLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. YATES; C.O. EDENSHAW; and
SUPERINTENDENT JESSICA
MATTHEWS;
Defendants.
Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
ORDER
Plaintiff claims that Superintendent Jessica Mathews, Sergeant Daniel Yates,
and Correctional Officer Michael Edenshaw (collectively “Defendants”) failed to protect
him from being assaulted by a fellow inmate on September 14, 2018, after they were
assigned to the same housing unit. 	He alleges that he received multiple fractures to his
face, requiring surgery, that he was left unconscious for “minutes,” and continues to suffer
from short- and long-term memory loss.1 	The Complaint alleges that Defendants Yates
and Mathews, “knew or should have known Mr. Harris was prone to assaultive actions
against others including the plaintiff.”2 It also alleges that Defendant Mathews “failed in
1 Docket 10.
2 Docket 10 at 3.
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 5

Isler v. Sgt. Yates, et al. 	Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
Order Granting Summary Judgment 	Page 2 of 5
her duty to require her jail facility to comply with the classification and housing policies”
of the DOC, and that Harris was known or should have been known to be assaultive to
others.3
Defendants move for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. 	They argue that there is no evidence that shows that any
Defendant made an intentional decision regarding Plaintiff’s confinement, knowing that
their decision put Plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm, and therefore
Plaintiff’s claims for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be
dismissed.4
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.5 The moving party bears the initial burden of proof for showing that no fact
is in dispute.6 	If the moving party meets that burden, then it falls upon the non-moving
party to refute with facts that would indicate a genuine issue of fact for trial.7 Summary
judgment is appropriate if the facts and allegations presented by a party are merely
colorable, or are not significantly probative.8
3 Docket 10 at 5.
4 Docket 31.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
8 Id.; see also In re Lewis, 97 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 1996); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1995).
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 5

Isler v. Sgt. Yates, et al. 	Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
Order Granting Summary Judgment 	Page 3 of 5
This Court provided Plaintiff with a Notice, which explained the nature of a
summary judgment motion, and the importance of filing a response.9 	Plaintiff was
instructed that he must “set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the
facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine
issue of material fact for trial. 	If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,
summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.” 	Plaintiff’s Opposition
was due on July 11, 2022. Nothing has been filed.
The elements of a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-
protect claim against an individual officer are: 	“(1) The defendant made an intentional
decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) Those
conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) The defendant
did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable
officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved—
making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4) By not taking such
measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. ”10
Defendants argue that there “is no demonstrable correlation between any
defendant’s decision related to Mr. Isler’s conditions of confinement and the unforeseeable
assault by inmate Jason Harris.”11 	Defendants argue that “both inmates were housed in
9 Docket 35.
10 Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016).
11 Docket 32 at 1.
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 3 of 5

Isler v. Sgt. Yates, et al. 	Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
Order Granting Summary Judgment 	Page 4 of 5
accordance with State of Alaska, Department of Corrections policy & procedure and there
is no demonstrable correlation between any defendant’s decision related to Mr. Isler’s
conditions of confinement and the unforeseeable assault by inmate Jason Harris.”12
Specifically, Defendants note that “under DOC P&P, Mr. Isler, a minimum custody
prisoner, and Mr. Harris, a medium custody prisoner, were permitted to be housed in the
same cell, dormitory, or modular housing unit.”13 	The Court agrees that there is no
evidence that any Defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions
under which Plaintiff was confined which “put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm.”
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Edenshaw “failed to do any action to
stop, break apart, or prevent the assault,” and Plaintiff suffered physical injury as a result.14
Defendants offer a video of the incident, which the Court has reviewed.15 The video does
not support Plaintiff’s allegation, as the actual assault lasted less than ten seconds before
Harris stopped his attack, just as Defendant Edenshaw enters the frame on the video, and
Defendant Edenshaw’s Incident Report indicates that “Harris immediately backed off
when told to do so, and was locked down with the rest of the dorm as well.”16
In light of the arguments presented by Defendants, and Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to those arguments, this Court has no choice but to grant summary judgment in
favor of Defendants. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.
12 Id.
13 Docket 32 at 6 (citing Docket 32-5 at (Section VI, Procedure, at C.2)).
14 Docket 10 at 4.
15 Docket 32 (Exhibit A).
16 Docket 32-3 (Exhibit B).
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 4 of 5

Isler v. Sgt. Yates, et al. 	Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
Order Granting Summary Judgment 	Page 5 of 5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 36 Filed 08/24/22 Page 5 of 5