preview

Case Analysis : Richard Diaz And Charles Logan

Better Essays
INTRODUCTION
Defendants, RICHARD DIAZ and CHARLES LOGAN, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s liability under a civil action using 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, former correctional officers, engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with Plaintiff, an inmate, depriving her of her right under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to remain free from cruel and unusual punishment. In further support of this Summary Judgment requesting that Plaintiff’s request for relief be denied, the Defendants respectfully refer the Court to this Memorandum. As grounds therefore, Defendants state the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In
…show more content…
(Tr. Letts. Diaz 1:4-6, Apr. 17, 2016; 1:17-18, May 10, 2016; 1:23-24, May 21, 2016.)
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff was moved to isolated confinement after being involved in a fight. (Compl. 2:24-26.) The next day, while Defendant Logan was monitoring the isolated confinement wing, Plaintiff invited him to join her in her cell for, as she put it, “a bit of fun in this boring place.” (Logan Aff. 1:9-12.) Upon entering the Plaintiff’s cell solely at her request, Defendant Logan and Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. (Logan Aff. 1:13-14.) On two occasions following this encounter, Plaintiff again requested that Defendant Logan enter her cell where they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. (Logan Aff. 1:15-17.) These encounters were the only sexual encounters between Plaintiff and Defendant Logan, each of which was at the Plaintiff’s request. (Logan Aff. 1:18-19.) No special treatment was provided to Plaintiff. (Logan Aff. 1:20-21.)
On September 13, 2016, Plaintiff reported both relationships to the superintendent of the Correctional Facility and supervisor of the Defendants. (Compl. 3:5-7.) Plaintiff has filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the sexual conduct between Plaintiff and Defendants was not consensual in nature, because an inmate cannot, as a matter of law, consent to sexual
    Get Access