Robert Peoples v. Porter McKnight

Filing 402753286

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:07-cv-01203-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998317794] [09-6537]

Case: 09-6537

Document: 34

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6537 ROBERT PEOPLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PORTER MCKNIGHT, Corporal, Defendant - Appellee, and SCDC; GEORGE HAGAN; SCDC DIRECTOR JON OZMINT; MAJOR BERNARD WALKER; IGC KEN LONG; NFN DUBOSE, Captain; LIEUTENANT ISIAH CANN; CORY JOHNSON, Officer; LATASHA GRANT, Officer; ERIC WILLIAMS, Officer; DARRELL TYLER, Lieutenant; SYLVIA RAWLS, Nurse; RAPID RESPONSE TEAM, All in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:07-cv-01203-CMC) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Case: 09-6537

Document: 34

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

Page: 2

Robert Peoples, Appellant Pro Se. Goforth, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, GUNN & South Carolina, for Appellee.

Andrew Todd Darwin, Ginger BRADFORD, PA, Spartanburg,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 09-6537

Document: 34

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), Robert Peoples, a South Carolina state inmate, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights during an incident that occurred at the Allendale Correctional Institution on April 22, 2004. Peoples alleged that Defendants used excessive force

against him when they sprayed riot gas into his cell following a disturbance on his wing and then were deliberately indifferent to his resulting serious medical needs. Claims against all Defendants except Corporal Porter McKnight, the corrections officer who actually sprayed the gas, were dismissed prior to trial. During the course of the trial,

the district court dismissed the deliberate indifference claim. The jury returned force a verdict in favor timely of McKnight on For the the

excessive

claim.

Peoples

appealed.

reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. Peoples dismissing evidence pleadings his contends that the district claim careful assert court before review a erred all of by the the

deliberate at

indifference trial. did A

was

presented that

reveals claim

Peoples

not

deliberate all other

indifference

against

McKnight.

Because

Defendants were dismissed from the action prior to trial and Peoples does not challenge their dismissal, we conclude that the 3

Case: 09-6537

Document: 34

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

Page: 4

district

court

properly

declined

to

hear

evidence

on

the

deliberate indifference claim. Peoples next argues that the district court failed to properly instruct the jury on excessive force. The court based

the instruction given to the jury on Fourth Circuit precedent established by Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc), and its progeny. In Norman, we held that "absent the

most extraordinary circumstances, a plaintiff cannot prevail on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim if his injury is de minimis." Id. at 1263. After Peoples filed his appeal, the

Supreme Court overruled Norman, holding that, while the extent of an inmate's injury is relevant in assessing an excessive

force claim, the "core judicial inquiry" in an excessive force claim focuses on the nature of the force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130

S. Ct. 1175, ___, 2010 WL 596513, at *3 (2010). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment as it pertains to the excessive force claim against McKnight, and remand for

further proceedings in light of Wilkins v. Gaddy.

The district Peoples' of a

court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects. motions for appointment of counsel and for

preparation

transcript at Government expense are denied. oral argument because the facts and legal

We dispense with contentions are

4

Case: 09-6537

Document: 34

Date Filed: 04/13/2010

Page: 5

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

5