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.

Young v. Harvey

United States District Court, D. Maine

February 23, 2018

JEREMIAH YOUNG, Plaintiff
v.
SGT. HARVEY, et al., Defendants

          FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

          John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge

         In this action, Plaintiff Jeremiah Young alleges Defendants Scott Harvey and Jordan Miller were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to him when they failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate on July 5, 2016. Plaintiff asserts his claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Following a bench trial, and after consideration of the evidence[1] and the parties' arguments, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

         Findings of Fact

         The Court finds the following facts:

1. In June and July 2016, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Maine State Prison.
2. In June and July 2016, Lebon Bruno was also an inmate at the Maine State Prison.
3. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was assigned to a cell in C-Pod of the Maine State Prison.
4. Sometime prior to July 1, 2016, Mr. Bruno was transferred from another pod to C-Pod. After approximately one week in C-Pod, Mr. Bruno was assigned to the same cell as Plaintiff.
5. Mr. Bruno was transferred to Plaintiff's cell as the result of a move slip that was purportedly signed by the inmates involved in the move, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains that he did not sign the move slip.
6. Defendant Harvey, a sergeant assigned to work in C-Pod, was not at work on the day Mr. Bruno was transferred to Plaintiff's cell. Defendant Miller, a corrections officer assigned to C-Pod, was also not at work on the day Mr. Bruno was transferred to Plaintiff's cell.
7. At some point after Mr. Bruno was transferred into Plaintiff's cell, Plaintiff had concerns about and objected to Mr. Bruno's use of some type of liquid in the cell. When Plaintiff complained about Mr. Bruno's activity, Defendant Harvey addressed the issue.
8. On or about July 3, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Harvey about Mr. Bruno and the move slip. Plaintiff explained that Mr. Bruno was acting erratically, that he had not signed the move slip, and that he did not want Mr. Bruno to remain as his roommate. Although it appeared that Plaintiff might not have signed the move slip, Defendant Harvey was unable to determine whether the slip had been forged.
9. At the time Plaintiff requested that Mr. Bruno be transferred out of Plaintiff's cell, there was no cell to which Mr. Bruno could be transferred. Defendant Harvey asked ...

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.