in jail. He alleged that he received no medication while in jail and had
seizures as a result. The court says (a) the defendants say they medicated
him twice and he admits he has a faulty memory, and (b) he has been unable
to produce any evidence that they knowingly disregarded a serious risk.
(Now here is a nice maneuver in the universe of summary judgment--first the
court resolves a factual dispute in the non-moving party's favor, then
cites in the alternative the lack of evidence on a point with which the
defendants' claim that they did medicate him is inconsistent!)
An alleged lack of drinking water in his cell and lack of water to flush
the toilet does not make out a constitutional violation in light of
plaintiff's admission that officers brought in water to drink and to flush
the toilet with. At 664: "Also, though sleeping on the floor for extended
periods of time may amount to a constitutional violation, the temporary
inconvenience of one night spent on the floor does not."
The court dismisses the plaintiff's claim that he had no opportunity to
take discovery because the plaintiff did not follow the requirements of
Rule 56(d) to submit an affidavit explaining why he can't submit evidence.
See: Carlyle v. Aubrey, 189 F.Supp.2d 660 (W.D.Ky. 2001).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login