Jeffrey Servidio v. Sgt. Pittman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-ct-03072-D. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999719198]. Mailed to: Jeffrey Servidio. [15-7036]

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7036

JEFFREY SERVIDIO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. PITTMAN; SGT. PRICE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-ct-03072-D)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

December 16, 2015

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Servidio, Appellant Pro Se.
Peter Andrew Regulski,
Assistant Attorney General, Donna Elizabeth Tanner, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey
district

Servidio,

court’s

entry

a

North

of

Carolina

summary

inmate,

judgment

in

appeals
favor

of

the
the

Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action arising out of
an altercation that occurred on March 24, 2011.
Servidio’s

verified

complaints,

he

and

According to

Correctional

Officer

Sharpe had a disagreement in the gym, and Sharpe was instructed
to bring Servidio back to the main building, which she did.
Servidio was then subjected to a strip search and handcuffed
behind his back.

Correctional Officer Williams told Servidio

that she needed to take him to the medical unit, and he declined
medical treatment.

Servidio alleges that Sergeant Pittman then

appeared, informed Servidio that he was going to medical and,
without provocation, pepper sprayed Servidio in the face and
then grabbed him and threw him head first into a wall.

Servidio

alleged that Sergeant Price arrived and that Pittman and Price
continued

to

unconscious.

assault

him,

causing

Servidio

to

become

Servidio asserts that he suffered a hematoma on

the top of his head, scratches and bruises, permanent partial
vision loss in his left eye, and partial loss of the use of his
right arm.
According

to

affidavits

submitted

with

their

motion

for

summary judgment, the Defendants assert that, as Sergeant Price
entered the area where Servidio was waiting with Correctional
2

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

Officer Williams, Servidio attempted to exit the area.

Pittman

reached for Servidio’s shoulder to stop him, but Servidio turned
around, lowered his head, and attempted to head butt Pittman.
At this point, Pittman sprayed the chemical agent in Servidio’s
face.

Servidio fell backward into a wall-mounted shelf and then

onto the floor.

Servidio began kicking at Pittman and Price,

but the Defendants applied no force, other than the single burst
of pepper spray.
Servidio
remove

the

was

taken

chemical

to

agent.

medical
He

and

was

allowed

then

seen

to
by

shower
a

to

nurse.

According to his medical records, Servidio had swelling on the
back of his head and an abrasion on his left leg.

The nurse

cleaned the abrasion and applied ice to Servidio’s injuries.
Based on this evidence, the district court concluded that
the Defendants applied force in a good faith effort to maintain
or restore discipline after Servidio declined medical treatment
and that the single burst of pepper spray did not violate the
Eighth Amendment.
the

evidence

in

The court also determined that, even viewing
the

light

most

favorable

to

Servidio,

no

reasonable jury could find that the Defendants’ actions violated
the Eighth Amendment, and therefore granted summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants.
“Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
3

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

judgment as a matter of law.”

Pg: 4 of 6

Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co.,

739 F.3d 163, 169 (4th Cir. 2014).
summary

judgment

determination

We review a district court’s

de

novo,

drawing

reasonable

inferences from the evidence viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party.
Cir. 2012).
Servidio

Webster v. USDA, 685 F.3d 411, 421 (4th

We find, based on our review of the record, that

presented

sufficient

evidence

to

preclude

summary

judgment and, therefore, we vacate the district court’s order.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits “the unnecessary and wanton
infliction
(1986).

of

pain.”

Whitley

v.

Albers,

475

U.S.

312,

319

“When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use

force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always
are violated.”

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).

In

considering a claim of an Eighth Amendment violation, we must
determine “whether the prison official acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind (subjective component) and whether the
deprivation
sufficiently

suffered
serious

or

injury

inflicted

(objective

on

component).”

the

inmate

was

Williams

v.

Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996); see Iko v. Shreve,
535 F.3d 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2008).
In a case in which an inmate claims that a prison official
used

excessive

force

against

him,

the

subjective

component

demands that the inmate demonstrate that officials applied force
wantonly; that is, “maliciously and sadistically for the very
4

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

purpose of causing harm,” rather than as part of “a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline.”
503

U.S.

1,

7

(1992)

(internal

Hudson v. McMillian,

quotation

marks

omitted).

Factors relevant to this determination include “the need for the
application of force, the relationship between that need and the
amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the
responsible

official,’

and

‘any

efforts

severity of a forceful response.’”

made

to

temper

the

Id. (quoting Whitley, 475

U.S. at 320-21).
Here, Servidio admits that he declined to go to medical as
directed, but asserts that he was merely exercising his right to
refuse treatment.

He attests that he was calmly waiting to be

moved back to his cell block when Sergeant Pittman arrived, told
Servidio
sprayed

he
him

was
in

going
the

to

face

medical,
with

and,

pepper

without

spray

and

provocation,
continued

to

physically assault him.
Satisfying the objective component in the context of an
excessive

force

“nontrivial.”

claim

demands

Wilkins

v.

only

Gaddy,

that
559

the

U.S.

force
34,

39

used

be

(2010).

According to the version of events sworn to by Servidio and
supported at least in part by his medical records, and viewing
the

evidence

in

the

light

most

favorable

to

Servidio,

see

Webster, 685 F.3d at 421, we conclude that the force used was
not trivial.

Rather, Servidio attested that Defendants applied
5

Appeal: 15-7036

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/16/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

sufficient force to render him unconscious and to cause partial
permanent loss of vision in one eye and limited range of motion
in his right arm.
We conclude that the evidence, construed in the light most
favorable to Servidio, see Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378
(2007), could support a jury finding that the officers wantonly
administered significant force to Servidio in retaliation for
his conduct rather than for the purpose of bringing him under
control.

Therefore, we conclude that the district court erred

in granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, and we
vacate

its

judgment

and

remand

for

further

proceedings.

We

express no opinion on the ultimate disposition of Servidio’s
claims.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

6