Echols v. Price et al
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 7/29/2015. (JLC)
2015 Jul-29 PM 03:42
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On May 16, 2011, the plaintiff, Nakia Cortez Echols (“Mr. Echols”), was an
inmate at the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility (“Donaldson”), in
Bessemer, Alabama. Correctional Officers Joseph Newman (“Officer Newman”),
Brian Robinson (“Officer Robinson”), and Byron Jones (“Officer Jones”) were on
duty at Donaldson on May 16, 2011. At approximately 11:00 p.m., Mr. Echols ran out
of his cell after failing to comply with directives given to him by Officers Robinson
and Newman. Both officers chased Mr. Echols. Officer Robinson pursued Mr. Echols
directly; Officer Newman ran in the opposite direction to cut Mr. Echols off. Mr.
Echols ran down the second tier balcony, down the stairs to the first tier, across the
day room located on the first tier, and back up the stairs to the second tier at the
opposite end of one side of C Block. Mr. Echols testified that he saw that he was
pinned between the two officers, and lay down to surrender. Mr. Echols testified that
Officer Newman came over to him and pulled him to his feet by his shirt and pants.
Mr. Echols testified that he and Officer Newman “tusseled,” and then Officer
Newman threw him over the tier railing head first, seriously injuring his face, wrist,
and hip. Officers Newman and Robinson testified that Mr. Echols climbed over the
tier railing to elude them, and fell headfirst. His injuries are not disputed. Mr. Echols
has sued Officer Newman for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Officer
Newman was acting under color of law and exerted excessive force.
The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. Mr. Echols acted pro se. Upon
consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, and the arguments of counsel
and Mr. Echols, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are issued in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1) in support of the Court's
determination that Mr. Echols has failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the
evidence and therefore is not entitled to recover from Officer Newman.
I. FACTUAL OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Echols filed this action against Warden Cheryl Price, Warden Gary Hetzel,
Deputy Warden Chris Gordy, Robinson, and Newman. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Mr. Echols alleged that these defendants deprived him of rights accorded to him by
the United States Constitution. On November 19, 2013, the undersigned adopted the
report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Harwell G. Davis, III and dismissed
all of Mr. Echols’s claims except his claim against Officer Newman for excessive
force/cruel and unusual punishment. (Docs. 15 & 16). On February 19, 2015, the
undersigned adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Davis and
denied Officer Newman’s motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 25 & 28). The case
proceeded to trial against Officer Newman on that claim.
II. TRIAL EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 16, 2011, Mr. Echols was a prisoner housed in cell number 26 of “C
Block” at Donaldson. That night, between 10:30 and 11:00 pm,1 Officer Robinson,
the correctional officer assigned to C Block as a “rover,” performed a “bed check” or
“bed roster” on Mr. Echols. The process involves the rover going to the inmates’ cells
individually and checking their name and AIS number to ensure that each particular
individual is in his cell before locking down for the night. During bed roster, no
inmate is allowed to be out of his cell. After bed roster is complete, some inmates,
who are assigned cleaning duties, are allowed to exit their cells for that purpose.
As Officer Robinson was checking Mr. Echols’s cell, he noticed an obstruction
inside the door locking mechanism which prevented Mr. Echols’s cell door from
Mr. Echols testified that it was “something to 11:00 or close to 11:00.”
locking. Officer Robinson attempted to unblock the obstruction. Officer Robinson
then moved on to other cells and completed his bed check on that side of C block.
Officer Robinson then returned to Mr. Echols’s cell and had the door “rolled open,”
which is the prison’s term for mechanically having the door opened by an officer in
a separate location called the “cube”–a clear, cube-shaped enclosure which overlooks
C Block.2 As the door opened, Mr. Echols jumped into his bed and stuck his hand into
his pants.3 Officer Robinson immediately began to accuse Mr. Echols of having
contraband, and directed Mr. Echols to give it to him. Mr. Echols denied having any
contraband. After about 3-4 minutes, during which Officer Robinson made several
such directives and Mr. Echols continued to refuse, Officer Robinson called over the
radio for the defendant, Officer Newman, to come to cell 26 to assist him.4
It also overlooks D Block–another part of the prison which is connected to C Block.
Officer Robinson testified that this is what occurred. Mr. Echols testified that he was
already lying in his bed at the time, was "startled" when the door opened, and then turned quickly
in his bed to see who was entering. The court finds Mr. Echols’s testimony on this matter not
credible in light of the facts that: Mr. Echols’s testimony that he was never ordered to participate
in a strip search was impeached by his deposition at trial; virtually undisputed evidence showed
that Mr. Echols, during the later chase, slid contraband (specifically, a cell phone) under the door
of cell 44; and his testimony that he may have removed his shirt directly contradicted his
testimony that Officer Newman picked him up by his shirt and pants before Officer Newman
threw him over the tier rail.
Officer Byron Jones testified that he was working the cube that night. His testimony
established that two officers are assigned at one time as rovers for both C and D Blocks. One
rover works one block, and one works the other. The testimony of Officer Jones established that
only Officer Robinson would have been on C Block at the time of this incident until he called for
Officer Newman, who would have been on D Block until he was called.
It took Officer Newman about a minute to arrive at Mr. Echols’s cell. At this
time, both officers were standing in the doorway of Mr. Echols’s cell. When Officer
Newman arrived, Officer Robinson told Officer Newman what the situation was, and
Officer Newman asked Mr. Echols to turn over to Officer Robinson whatever
contraband Mr. Echols had. Mr. Echols again stated that he had no contraband. Mr.
Echols testified that Officer Newman was a bigger man than he was and that he felt
threatened by the officers.
The officers had Mr. Echols’s cell partner exit the cell. Officer Robinson then
ordered Mr. Echols to participate in a strip search. Although Mr. Echols did not
initially comply with that command, after Officer Robinson gave the command two
or three more times, Mr. Echols started the strip search by removing his shirt and
shoes; then stopped, leaving his pants on.5 At that time, Mr. Echols became more
verbally aggressive, and moved toward the cell door. Officer Newman placed his
hand on Mr. Echols’s chest and told him to stop. Mr. Echols then attempted to hit
Officer Newman with his fist.
At that point, Officer Robinson reached for a “chemical agent” called “Sabre
On cross examination, Mr. Echols denied ever being ordered to perform a strip search.
The court finds this testimony not credible in light of the fact that Mr. Echols was impeached
with his deposition, when he stated that he was ordered to take off his shirt, and by his trial
testimony, when he stated he may have taken off his shirt.
Red” that correctional officers at Donaldson used at the time. Officer Robinson
testified that it was similar to pepper spray. He attempted to spray, and may have
sprayed, Mr. Echols, but he accidentally sprayed Officer Newman as well, causing
Officer Newman to become temporarily incapacitated.
Mr. Echols then pushed past Officer Newman and ran out of his cell and into
C Block with Officer Robinson giving chase.6 Mr. Echols led Officer Robinson on
a chase along the walkway on the top tier, down a flight of stairs to the bottom floor
of C Block, across the floor (what the witnesses referred to as the “day room floor”),
and up another flight stairs to return again to the top tier of C Block near cell number
48. Mr. Echols then ran across the top tier walkway, with Officer Robinson in pursuit
behind him, when he slowed down slightly, and, while still moving, bent over and
slid something under the door of cell 44 and then continued to run. Officer Robinson
stopped chasing Mr. Echols and had Officer Jones open cell 44 so that Officer
Robinson could secure the item Mr. Echols had slid under the door of that cell.7
After Officer Newman had recovered sufficiently from the chemical spray, he
joined in the effort to apprehend Mr. Echols. By the time that Mr. Echols had slid the
cell phone into cell 44, Officer Newman was running up the stairs near cell
C Block has two floors, or “tiers.” Cell 26 was on the top tier.
Testimony from the prisoners housed in cell 44 established that Mr. Echols slid a cell
phone under the door during the chase.
37–directly in front of Mr. Echols. At that time, Mr. Echols, somewhere between cells
38 to 41 on the top tier, began to climb over the top tier railing, which is about 43
inches high. As he straddled the railing, he slipped and fell to the floor below.8 No
one was within 100 feet of Mr. Echols as he began to climb the railing. As a result of
the fall, Mr. Echols sustained the injuries he complained of.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 1983 provides a vehicle for bringing claims for constitutional
violations committed under color of state law. To prevail, Mr. Echols must
demonstrate both that Officer Newman deprived him of a right secured under the
United States Constitution or federal law and that the deprivation occurred under
color of state law. Arrington v. Cobb Cnty., 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir.1998). “A
person acts under color of state law when he acts with authority possessed by virtue
of his employment with the state.” Griffin v. City of Opa–Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303
(11th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted).
The issue of whether Officer Newman acted under color of state law is not
Mr. Echols testified that he attempted to “surrender” by laying down on the floor, but
that Officer Newman charged him, told him that he was going to kill him, and picked him up off
the floor by his shirt and pants. Mr. Echols testified that, as Officer Newman picked him up off
the floor and they were “tussling,” Officer Newman tried to slam him and threw him over the
rail. The court finds this testimony not credible in light of the fact that both Officers Robinson
and Newman testified that Mr. Echols fell from the rail on his own, and none of the inmate
witnesses saw Officer Newman throw Mr. Echols from the rail.
contested. Nor does Officer Newman argue that, under Mr. Echols’s version of the
facts, Officer Newman did not violate Mr. Echols’s constitutional right to be free
from cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, Officer Newman does not dispute the
injuries that Mr. Echols testified he sustained. Thus, the issue for this court to decide
is, “What happened?”
The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is
triggered when a prisoner is subjected to an “unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). An excessive force claim requires
a two-prong showing: (1) an objective showing of deprivation or injury that is
“sufficiently serious” to constitute a denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities”; and, (2) a subjective showing that the official had a “sufficiently
culpable state of mind.” Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1305 (11th Cir.2010)
(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (other citations omitted).
The Supreme Court has held that “whenever prison officials stand accused of
using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Clause, the core judicial inquiry [in determining whether a prisoner has suffered
unnecessary and wanton pain] is that set out in Whitley, whether force was applied
in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically
to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992).
The factors to be examined in determining whether the use of force was wanton
and unnecessary include an evaluation of: 1) the need for the application of the force,
2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, 3) the threat
reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, 4) any efforts made to temper the
severity of the response, and 5) the extent of the injury suffered by the inmate.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 7.
The undersigned credits the testimony of Officer Newman that he did not throw
Mr. Echols over the second tier railing. The only testimony that supports Mr. Echols’s
version is that given by Mr. Echols himself and the speculative testimony of inmates
who admittedly did not see Officer Newman touch Mr. Echols, much less see him
throw him over the railing. While an inmate did testify that he saw Mr. Echols lying
down (before he went over the railing), even that witness did not testify that he saw
Officer Newman close to, much less touch, Mr. Echols. In light of the fact that Mr.
Echols’s repeatedly testified that Officer Newman picked him up by his shirt and
pants (before throwing him over the railing) in direct contradicted of Mr. Echols’s
testimony that he may have taken off his shirt (before he ran out of his cell), together
with the testimony of Officer Newman that Mr. Echols took off his shirt and shoes
(before he ran out of his cell), the court finds Mr. Echols’s version of the facts not
In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
plaintiff Nakia Cortez Echols has failed to show that defendant Joseph Newman used
excessive force against him. Accordingly, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor
of Joseph Newman. Mr. Echols shall take nothing and his claim is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DONE this the 29th day of July, 2015.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
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?