Michael T. Hayes v. Kessler & Armfield
161 Idaho 833
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael T. Hayes, an Idaho Department of Correction inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of a dental pick, threats/disparaging remarks, and due-process violations in a disciplinary proceeding.
- Hayes originally named multiple defendants but served only Idaho Correctional Center, Tom Kessler, and Melodee Armfield; unserved parties and the prison entity were dismissed.
- Kessler and Armfield moved for summary judgment supported by sworn declarations (including a treating dentist and Armfield). Hayes opposed but offered no sworn evidence or admissible discovery responses.
- District court construed Hayes’s remaining claims as: denial of dental pick leading to gum infection (Eighth Amendment), Sergeant Green’s threats (first raised via grievance; Kessler reviewed grievance), and due-process defects in a disciplinary hearing presided over by Armfield (Fourteenth Amendment).
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal Hayes raised multiple issues but did not adequately brief two (discovery and amendment) and failed to present admissible evidence to create genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of dental pick — Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Hayes: denial of dental pick caused severe gum infection and defendants (Kessler) condensed/condoned denial, showing deliberate indifference | Defs: policy barred dental picks in segregation; evidence (dentist affidavit) showed infection due to long-term periodontal disease, not lack of a pick; no evidence Kessler knew of a substantial risk | Court: Grant for defendants — Hayes failed to show Kessler knew of and disregarded a substantial risk; bare conspiracy/condonation allegations insufficient |
| Threats/disparaging remarks by officer — § 1983 | Hayes: Kessler covered up Sergeant Green’s threatening conduct (which violated rights) | Defs: threats alone are not conscience-shocking; no constitutional violation for mere threats/disparaging remarks | Court: Grant for defendants — alleged threats were inappropriate but did not ‘‘shock the conscience’’; no underlying constitutional violation to cover up |
| Disciplinary proceeding due process — Fourteenth Amendment | Hayes: Armfield found him guilty on a false DOR, denied notice, denied reading statement, denied witnesses, and placement in administrative segregation without due process | Defs: Armfield’s sworn affidavit states she confirmed the DOR but imposed no discipline; thus no atypical, significant hardship implicating a liberty interest | Court: Grant for defendants — Hayes provided only unsworn assertions and failed to rebut sworn evidence; no protected liberty interest shown |
| Summary judgment procedure / admissible evidence | Hayes: district court erred in denying discovery and in resolving material facts for defendants | Defs: movants met burden by showing absence of evidence on essential elements; Hayes failed to present admissible affidavits or invoke I.R.C.P. 56(d) | Court: Grant for defendants — moving parties established lack of evidence on essential elements; Hayes did not produce admissible counterevidence or justify failure to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (Eighth Amendment—risk of future harm theory)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment analysis)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis—atypical and significant hardship)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (‘‘shock the conscience’’ standard for due-process claims based on executive action)
- Flanory v. Bonn, 604 F.3d 249 (denial of toothbrush/toothpaste may present substantial risk; limiting relevance of dental implements)
- Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469 (same; scope of Eighth Amendment risk from denial of hygiene items)
- King v. Olmsted County, 117 F.3d 1065 (threats/disparaging remarks generally not actionable under § 1983)
- Hayes v. Conway, 144 Idaho 503 (Idaho case discussing deliberate indifference standard)
- Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (insulting or assaultive comments by guard do not alone create constitutional violation)
- Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374 (racial slurs/threats insufficient for § 1983 absent more)
- Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97 (threat combined with conduct may be conscience-shocking)