Chatman v. Roy et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 1/27/2020. (JLC)

Download PDF
FILED 2020 Jan-27 PM 05:05 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STANLEY BRENT CHATMAN, Plaintiff, v. COI KENNEDY D. ROY, et al, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action Number 2:17-cv-01952-AKK MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter came before the court today for a bench trial on Stanley Chatman’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims based his allegations that Officer Kennedy Roy sprayed Chatman in the face with a fire extinguisher and Lieutenant Mohammad Jenkins assaulted Chatman in a hallway by spraying him with a chemical agent and slapping him. Chatman testified in support of his case and presented inmates Mornterieus Densmore, Travis Burns, and Johnny Davis as witnesses. The two defendants testified and also called as a witness Joshua Murphree, who was a corrections lieutenant at the time of the incident. As explained in open court, based on Officer Roy and Lt. Jenkins’ testimony and their demeanor, and that of the other witnesses, the court finds Officer Roy and Lt. Jenkins more credible than Chatman and his witnesses. The court, sitting as the trier of fact and law, concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that Chatman has failed to establish that these defendants violated his Eight Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Therefore, in light of the evidence presented by the defendants and Chatman’s failure to prove his claims, the court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants Kennedy Roy and Mohammed Jenkins and dismiss this case with prejudice. A separate order in accordance with this memorandum opinion will be entered. DONE the 27th day of January, 2020. _________________________________ ABDUL K. KALLON 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?