Patrick Watson v. K. Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [998590297-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00731-AJT-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998680245]. Mailed to: Patrick Watson. [11-6523]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-6523 Document: 13 Date Filed: 09/19/2011 Page: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6523 PATRICK STEPHEN WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. K. BROWN; BHAGIRATH, Sgt., Defendants – Appellees, and UNKNOWN, Defendant No. 3; UNKNOWN, Defendant No. 4, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00731-AJT-JFA) Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 19, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Stephen Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 11-6523 Document: 13 Date Filed: 09/19/2011 Page: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Patrick order granting Stephen summary Watson judgment U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. appeals to the the district Defendants on court’s his 42 For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 56(a); see “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). For a non-movant to present a genuine issue of material fact, “[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of [the nonmoving party’s] case.” Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d Cir. 645, 649 (4th Watson, a 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). former pre-trial detainee, premises claim against Brown on the excessive use of force. 2 his He claims Appeal: 11-6523 Document: 13 Brown Date Filed: 09/19/2011 deliberately closed a Page: 3 of 5 prison door on him and thus aggravated his already-broken shoulder. The Eighth Amendment prohibits unusual the infliction of U.S. Const. amend. VIII. excessive sentences treatment and “cruel and punishments.” This prohibition “not only outlaws but also conditions protects while inmates from Williams imprisoned.” Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). inhumane v. “Eighth Amendment analysis necessitates inquiry as to whether the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective component) inflicted and on component).” whether the the inmate deprivation was suffered sufficiently serious or injury (objective Id. To meet the subjective component of an excessive force claim, the claimant must show that the prison official applied force “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. (1986) (internal objective Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 quotation component, marks “[w]hen omitted). prison But, officials as to the maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. This significant injury is evident.” is beaten by whether or not Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (internal citation omitted). gratuitously true guards does 3 not “An inmate who is lose his ability to Appeal: 11-6523 Document: 13 Date Filed: 09/19/2011 Page: 4 of 5 pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178-79 (2010) (per curiam). Brown’s and Watson’s factual assertions effectively boiled down to a swearing contest backed chiefly by the parties’ own affidavits. Crediting Watson’s version of events as we must on summary judgment review, Brown deliberately shut the door on him and told him as much. Watson did not perceive the door was closing until he was pinned against the doorway. The district court therefore erred when it made a dispositive credibility determination on the basis of the competing affidavits. We vacate the district court’s summary judgment in Brown’s favor and remand for consideration of Brown’s alternative grounds for summary judgment. Watson claims deliberate medical need against Bhagirath. indifference to a serious For a claimant to prevail on such a claim, “the need must be both apparent and serious, and the denial of attention must be both legitimate penological objective.” 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). deliberate and without Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d “Deliberate indifference is a very high standard—a showing of mere negligence will not meet it.” Id. at 695. Instead, a prison guard evinces deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering 4 Appeal: 11-6523 Document: 13 Date Filed: 09/19/2011 with the treatment once prescribed. 97, 104-05 (1976). Watson failed Page: 5 of 5 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. to show a serious injury sufficient to avoid summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Watson’s claim against Bhagirath. We vacate the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Brown and remand so that the district court may consider in the first instance the alternative grounds raised by Brown’s summary judgment motion. We deny Watson’s request for transcripts at the expense. Government’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 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

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?