Herbert Speller appeals a district court order granting the State’s motion for summary judgment. We аffirm.
Speller, an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary, filed a tort claim against the State sеeking damages for injuries sustained while he was sleeping in his cell. Speller claimed he was attacked by an unknown person who threw scalding water on him on the morning of December 3, 1988. Speller сlaimed the State was negligent in failing to protect him from the assault.
The State filed a motion for summary judgment arguing there had been no showing
Speller filed a resistance, arguing an Offi-. cer “Frank” had discussed the potential risk of attacks with inmates. The State showed no officer named “Frank” was assigned to Speller’s eellblock in 1988. Following a hearing, the district court granted the State’s motion.
Speller filеd a motion to vacate summary-judgment, claiming a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the issue of notice of an attack by a fellow inmate. Speller also alleged a new fact that the officer “Frank” who allegedly had notice of the attack was an officеr “Frank Vale” who worked in the penitentiary kitchen. However, prison records revealed no “Frank Vale” worked in the prison kitchens in 1988. The district court denied Speller’s motion to vacate.
Our scope of reviews is for corrections of errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 4. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving рarty is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Iowa R.Civ.P. 237(c); see Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milne,
The Iowa Tort Claims Act, now codified at Iowa Code chapter 669 (1993), permits an action by a prisoner when the state negligently permits the prisoner in its custody to be injured by the violent assault of another prisoner. Barnard v. State,
The record shows Spеller did not inform officials of any threats or attacks directed against him or other inmates prior to December 3. At the time of the incident five guards were assigned to Speller’s eellblock. There is no evidence to suggest violence in Speller’s eellblock was so frequent as to place prison officials on constructive notice of a need for additional protective measures. There is no evidence showing officials placed inmates hostile tо Speller in his eellblock. Other similar attacks on other inmates occurred after the attack оn Speller, therefore officials had no prior notice or knowledge of any potеntial threat to Speller. In addition, Speller refused to identify any of the parties involved follоwing the attack.
Speller continues to contend there is a factual dispute involving a correctional officer “Frank.” The State presented affidavits and prison records showing no оfficer “Frank” was assigned to Speller’s eellblock or the penitentiary kitchen. On appеal Speller .alleges new facts regarding the identity of officer “Frank” that were not considеred by the district court.
AFFIRMED.