Demetrius Hill v. Terry O'Brien
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to remand case [998356740-2] Originating case number: 7:08-cv-00283-jct-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998377300] [09-6823]
Demetrius Hill v. Terry O'Brien
Doc. 0
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6823 DEMETRIUS HILL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. TERRY O'BRIEN, Warden; MR. STRICKLAND, Associate Warden; MR. WILSON, Captain; LIEUTENANT STIGER; NURSE MEADE; DOCTOR ALLRED; DOCTOR ROFF, Health Administrator, Defendants Appellees, and COUNSELOR PULIVAR; COUNSELOR MULLINS; Manager; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR, Defendants. MS. HALL, Case
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00283-jct-mfu) Submitted: June 30, 2010 Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Decided: and July 12, 2010 Circuit
Before TRAXLER, Judges.
GREGORY,
Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 2
Demetrius Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 3
PER CURIAM: In incarcerated April during 2008, the Demetrius relevant Hill, period a at federal United inmate States
Penitentiary Lee ("USP Lee"), filed a civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various prison officials at USP Lee used excessive force against him, subjected him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, retaliated against him,
obstructed his ability to file administrative grievances, and denied him adequate rights. medical Upon care, in an violation initial of his
constitutional
conducting
screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2006), the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim all but one of Hill's excessive force claims and his medical indifference claims. By subsequent
order, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the remaining claims. Hill appeals both orders challenging
the denial of relief on his claims.
I. Allegations in a complaint are to be liberally
construed, and a court should not dismiss an action for failure to state a claim "`unless after accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences 3 from those facts in the
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 4
plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.'" 2003) De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. Veney are v. Wyche, 293 that F.3d pro 726, se 730 (4th Cir.
(quoting Courts
2002)).
instructed
filings
"however Noble v.
unskillfully pleaded, must be liberally construed."
Barnett, 24 F.3d 582, 587 n.6 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)). "to and However, raise a the right a complaint to must contain the is
sufficient speculative
facts level"
relief to
above that
"state
claim
relief
plausible on its face." 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. A claim having no arguable basis in law Neitzke v. Williams, 490
or fact may be dismissed as frivolous.
U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A (2006) (outlining screening process for indigent or prisoner
complaints). This court reviews de novo a district court's
dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915A. Slade v. Hampton Rds. Reg'l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Pursuant to § 1915A, a district court
shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
4
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 5
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Relying on our decision in Norman v. Taylor, 29 F.3d 1259, 1263 (4th Cir. 1994) (en banc), the district court noted that, absent the most extraordinary circumstances, an inmate
cannot prevail on an excessive force claim unless he proves more than de minimis pain or injury. Finding Hill failed to show
more than de minimis injury, the district court dismissed two of Hill's excessive force claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct.
1175 (2010), the Supreme Court recently overruled Norman and clarified that the extent of any resulting injury, while
material to the question of damages and informative as to the likely degree of force applied, is not in and of itself a
threshold requirement for proving this type of Eighth Amendment claim. 130 S. Ct. at 1175. In doing so, the Court expressly
rejected the theory that lower courts may dismiss such claims based solely on the de minimis nature of the resulting injury. Id. at 1177-78. The Court emphasized that, "[t]he `core
judicial inquiry' . . . is not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather `whether force was applied in a good-faith maliciously effort and to maintain to or restore harm." discipline, Id. or
sadistically
cause
(quoting
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). 5
In other words,
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 6
because "not . . . every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to of a federal will cause not of action," in a a de minimis
application violation.
force
result
constitutional
Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9; see also Wilkins, 130 S. Ct.
at 1177-78 ("An inmate who complains of a push or a shove that causes no discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a valid excessive Where force the claim.") (internal is quotation marks a
omitted).
force
applied
excessive,
however,
constitutional claim may survive summary dismissal even if the resulting injury is de minimis. Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1180.
Because the district court did not have the benefit of the Wilkins decision, we vacate the district court's judgment dismissing Hill's excessive force claims for failure to state a claim and remand to the district court for consideration of
Hill's claims in light of Wilkins.
We affirm, however, the
district court's dismissal under § 1915A of Hill's other claims for the reasons stated by the district court.
II. In ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that Hill failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his medical indifference claims, November i.e., 1, that 2007, he and received that USP 6 inadequate Lee medical care on
provided
insufficient
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 7
treatment of his asthma condition on a day-to-day basis.
The
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") requires a prisoner to properly exhaust available administrative remedies prior to 42 84
filing an action challenging his conditions of confinement. U.S.C. (2006) § 1997e(a) (requiring (2006); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
"proper"
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies); Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008) (discussing exhaustion "availability" requirement is of remedies). Anderson "[T]he v. XYZ PLRA's Corr.
mandatory,"
Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 677 (4th Cir. 2005), and "applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve whether Porter general they v. circumstances excessive U.S. or particular or some episodes, other and
allege
force 532
wrong." to
Nussle,
534
516,
(2002).
Pursuant
§ 1997e(a), the exhaustion requirement is applicable to Bivens claims. See Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204,
1214 (10th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289, 291 (3d Cir. 2000). This court reviews a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo. *
*
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., 482 F.3d
Defendants' motion was styled "Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment." However, Hill received notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, (Continued) 7
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 8
686, 694 (4th Cir. 2007).
"At the summary judgment stage, facts
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a `genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary judgment "should be rendered if the
pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." employees bear Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). the burden on exhaustion Because the prison in this case, see
Bennette, 517 F.3d at 725, they must show that the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable factfinder could find that Hill was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). An otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated by the existence of some factual dispute;
rather, only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248. Indeed, to withstand a
310 (4th Cir. 1975), of his right to file material responsive to the Defendants' dispositive motion. Hill availed himself of this opportunity, and because the district court considered materials other than the complaint, the district court's order is best deemed a grant of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 8
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 9
motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(2); see Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) ("Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a `mere scintilla of evidence' in support of [the non-moving party's] case.") (citation omitted). Hill does not contest that he failed to exhaust his administrative rise to his remedies medical with respect to the incidents Rather, he giving argues
indifference
claims.
Defendants hindered his ability to exhaust his administrative remedies. In support of their motion for summary judgment based
on Hill's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Defendants submitted an affidavit from Sharon Wahl, a paralegal with the Bureau of Prisons, who noted that Hill has filed 229
administrative remedies since his incarceration and fourteen of those related to his confinement at USP Lee. Defendants further
argued that Hill's assertions that he was denied forms or that the forms were destroyed were nothing more than self-serving statements. In fact, they pointed to Hill's administrative
remedy history as proof that Hill's assertions that his access to the administrative remedy process has been obstructed is
belied by the record.
9
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 10
In judgment, failed to
response
to
Defendants' that and his failed
motion
for
summary often proper
Hill do
responded his rounds
assigned to give
counselor him the
grievance forms in some cases and that, in other cases, Hill was informed that he could only file one remedy form at a time and was then required to wait for a response before another could be filed. only As he noted in his complaint, Hill maintained he was able to exhaust some remedies because his assigned
counselor was on vacation and another counselor acting in his capacity provided some forms. "[A]n administrative remedy is not considered to have been available if a prisoner, through no fault of his own, was prevented from availing himself of it." Thus, "when prison officials prevent Moore, 517 F.3d at 725. inmates from using the
administrative process . . ., the process that exists on paper becomes unavailable in reality." Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678,
684 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 811 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that, because Dole properly
followed procedure and prison officials were responsible for the mishandling of his grievance, it cannot be said that Dole failed to exhaust his administrative remedies); Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 529 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that district court erred in failing to consider prisoner's claim that he was unable to submit a grievance, and 10 therefore lacked available
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 11
administrative
remedies,
because
prison
employees
refused
to
provide him with the necessary forms); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating administrative remedy rendered unavailable when prison officials prevent prisoner from using it). Accordingly, the district court is "obligated to
ensure that any defects in exhaustion were not procured from the action or inaction of prison officials." Aquilar-Avellaveda v.
Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007). We find there are genuine issues of material fact as to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, thereby precluding summary judgment. he requested BP-8 forms Hill's main allegations are that his counselor and that the
from
counselor refused to provide them, destroyed them, or failed to respond to them after requiring Hill to wait until he received a response to a claim before filing a new one. There is no
affidavit from Hill's counselor or the other named Defendants who allegedly obstructed Hill's administrative remedy process. See Kaba, 458 F.3d at 686 (finding affidavits of the prison officials factual and Kaba's other grievances the and filings to showed a
dispute,
requiring
factfinder
evaluate
the
credibility of the witnesses and other evidence in the record); see also Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 831-32 (7th Cir. 2002) (deemed administrative remedies exhausted when prison
officials failed to respond to inmate grievances because those 11
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 12
remedies had become "unavailable"); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 698 (8th Cir. 2001) (same). We further find Defendants' reliance on Hill's highvolume filings specious. First, the fact that Hill filed a
large number of complaints in other prisons is irrelevant to whether his efforts to file grievances were obstructed upon his arrival at USP Lee. Second, the fact that Hill successfully
filed many grievances in the past suggests that Hill is familiar with the requirements of the administrative process and is not purposefully attempting to evade them. Third, the ability to
take advantage of administrative grievances is not an "eitheror" proposition. See Kaba, 458 F.3d at 685 ("Sometimes
grievances are clearly available; sometimes they are not; and sometimes prisoner topics."). We conclude Hill has sufficiently shown genuine issues of material fact as to whether Defendants hindered his ability to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we there may is a be middle able ground to file where, for example, on a
only
grievances
certain
vacate the court's judgment and remand for a determination of whether the grievance procedure was "available" to Hill within the meaning of § 1997e(a) so that he could administratively
exhaust his medical claims. 12
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 13
III. The district court also granted summary judgment to Defendants on Hill's excessive force claim based on events on November 1, 2007, in which restraints were used. Hill's claim, the district court, relying In assessing on then-
again
controlling Fourth Circuit law, found that Hill's injuries were de minimis and did not amount to a constitutional violation. Although the district court also found that Hill could not show that Defendants' use of force was applied maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm, because the district court did not have the benefit we of Wilkins the at the time it rendered on its this
decision,
vacate
district
court's
judgment
excessive force claim and afford the court an opportunity to consider the claim in light of Wilkins. Accordingly, we grant Hill's motion to remand, vacate the district court's judgments as to all of Hill's excessive force claims to and remand to allow claims the in district of court an
opportunity
consider
the
light
the
Supreme
Court's decision in Wilkins. court's judgment dismissing for
We further vacate the district without prejudice exhaust Hill's medical
indifference
claims
failure
to
administrative
remedies and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Hill's 13
Case: 09-6823 Document: 15
Date Filed: 07/12/2010
Page: 14
remaining claims. facts and legal before
We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
materials
would
decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?