Adrian Bacon v. Michael Wood

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00565-JPJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999612977]. Mailed to: Adrian Nathaniel Bacon. [15-6073]

Appeal: 15-6073

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6073

ADRIAN NATHANIEL BACON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C/O MICHAEL WOOD; C/O WEBB; C/O C. ROSE; C/O K. BRINKLEY;
C/O WHITE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00565-JPJ)

Submitted:

May 29, 2015

Decided:

July 1, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Adrian Nathaniel Bacon, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6073

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Adrian Nathaniel Bacon, a Virginia prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment, on the ground
of qualified immunity, to Correctional Officers Michael Wood and
David

Webb

Officers

on

Chris

his

excessive

Rose,

force

Kendall

claim

and

Brinkley,

to

and

Correctional
Skylar

White

(together, with Webb and Wood, “Defendants”) on his deliberate
indifference claim in an action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012).

We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

“We review de novo an award of summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity.”
188 (4th Cir. 2012).

Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183,

“Summary judgment is proper only if taking

the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no
genuine

dispute

of

material

fact,

and

the

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

moving

party

is

Id.

As an initial matter, we agree with Bacon that the district
court

did

not

view

the

evidence,

and

reasonable

therefrom, in the light most favorable to him.

inferences

The district

court’s conclusions that Bacon had been handcuffed during the
incident with Defendants and had admitted to refusing to comply
with prison procedures for removing handcuffs while in his cell

2

Appeal: 15-6073

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

are not supported by any evidence in the present record. 1

Nor

does the record include evidence of the prison’s policies or
procedures for removing a prisoner’s handcuffs while he is in
his cell.
district

Instead of viewing the evidence in Bacon’s favor, the
court

viewed

the

evidence

in

Defendants’

favor

by

presuming the existence of evidence favorable to Defendants that
was not in the record.
judgment stage.

This was impermissible at the summary

See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Cts.,

780 F.3d 562, 570 (4th Cir. 2015).
“Our
inquiries:

qualified
(1)

immunity

whether

the

analysis
plaintiff

typically
has

involves

two

established

the

violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right
was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
Raub v. Campbell, __ F.3d __, __, 2015 WL 1926416, at *4 (4th
Cir. Apr. 29, 2015) (No. 14-1277).

“Eighth Amendment analysis

necessitates inquiry as to [(1)] whether the prison official[s]
acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective
component) and [(2)] whether the . . . injury inflicted on the
inmate was sufficiently serious (objective component).”

Iko v.

Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation

1

Although Bacon states for the first time in his informal
appellate brief that he was handcuffed at the relevant time, he
maintains here, as he did in the district court, that he
violated no prison policy.

3

Appeal: 15-6073

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/01/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

marks omitted); see Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-10 (1992)
(discussing
Albers,

475

subjective
U.S.

312,

and

objective

321

(1986)

components);

(setting

forth

Whitley

v.

factors

to

assist courts in assessing subjective component), abrogated on
other grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010).

Because

the district court viewed the facts in the light most favorable
to the Defendants, we are compelled to conclude that the court
erroneously granted summary judgment on Bacon’s Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim.
With regard to the subjective component, the district court
concluded that, because Defendants Wood and Webb used an amount
of force that caused only minimal injury in order to remove the
restraints from a noncompliant prisoner, their actions must be
characterized “as a good faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline.”

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6.

Because we disagree with

the district court’s description of the factual circumstances,
we conclude that there was no factual basis for the court’s
conclusion at the summary judgment stage.

Instead, applying the

Whitley factors, we conclude that the evidence shows no threat
to discipline, no need to apply any force on Bacon, and that the
use of any amount of force by Wood and Webb was disproportionate

4

Appeal: 15-6073

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/01/2015

to the need to use force. 2

Pg: 5 of 6

See Iko, 535 F.3d at 239; see

Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-38.
With regard to the objective component of the excessive
force claim, the district court relied on its analysis under the
subjective component in concluding that Bacon failed to satisfy
the objective component’s requirements.

Because the objective

component is not demanding, Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756,
761

(4th

Cir.

1996),

and

because

“contemporary

standards

of

decency always are violated” when “prison officials maliciously
and sadistically use force to cause harm,” Hudson, 503 U.S. at
9, we conclude that the district court erred in this regard as
well.
Turning
conclude
district
judgment.

that

to

Bacon’s

Bacon

court’s

has

deliberate
failed

dispositive

to

indifference
challenge

ground

for

on

claim,
appeal

granting

we
the

summary

See Stevenson v. City of Seat Pleasant, 743 F.3d 411,

2

The district court also concluded based on facts not in
the record that Wood and Webb employed a de minimis amount of
force.
It also relied on its conclusion that, because other
plausible causes for Bacon’s injury exist, Bacon was not
entitled to the inference that Wood and Webb caused his injury.
Such reasoning is at odds with the district court’s obligations
when deciding a summary judgment motion.
See Tolan v. Cotton,
134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014); Durham, 690 F.3d at 188. In any
event, we do not agree that the amount of force used here can be
considered de minimis based solely on the extent of Bacon’s
injury. See Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-38; Hudson, 503 U.S. at 910.

5

Appeal: 15-6073

417

Doc: 11

(4th

liability).
claim.

Filed: 07/01/2015

Cir.

2014)

Pg: 6 of 6

(providing

standard

for

bystander

Thus, he has forfeited appellate review of this

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

grant

of

summary judgment with respect to Bacon’s deliberate indifference
claim against Rose, Brinkley, and White; vacate the order with
respect to Bacon’s excessive force claim against Wood and Webb;
and

remand

proceedings.

the

case

to

the

district

court

for

further

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

6