Small v. Trani, et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting in part 75 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting Report and Recommendations 89 . By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/11/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00292-REB-MJW
TYRON DUANE SMALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CANDANCE CROSLEY, Sgt.,
KEVIN CRUTCHER, Sgt., and
KYLE ROBERTS, Lt.,
Defendant(s).

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [#75]1 filed February 10, 2014; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge [#89] filed June 9, 2014. The defendants filed
objections [#99] to the recommendation, and the plaintiff filed a response [#100] to the
objections. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, grant the
motion for summary judgment in part, and deny it in part.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110

1

“[#75]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

(10th Cir. 1991).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the defendants object. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law.
The plaintiff, Tyron Small, is a prisoner in the Colorado Department of
Corrections. He alleges in his amended complaint [#7] that defendants, Sgt. Kevin
Crutcher and Sgt. Candace Crosley, both correctional officers, assaulted Mr. Small on
October 10, 2012. According to Mr. Small, Sgts. Crutcher and Crosely gave Mr. Small
an order which Mr. Small followed. Mr. Small says he then was thrown to the ground
where Sgt. Crutcher smashed Mr. Small’s head into the ground with his full body weight
and Sgt. Crosley used unnecessary force on Mr. Small by twisting and pulling on Mr.
Small’s hands or the handcuffs with enough force to cause the handcuffs to cut into Mr.
Small’s wrist. At the time of these events, Mr. Small contends, he was subdued and did
not pose a threat to Sgts. Crutcher and Crosley. Mr. Small contends defendant Lt.
Roberts failed to protect Mr. Small from this assault. Based on these allegations, Mr.
Small asserts a claim for violation of his rights under the Eight and Fourteenth
Amendments.
In their motion for summary judgment [#75], the defendants contend that the
claims against them must be dismissed to the extent Mr. Small asserts claims for
damages against the defendants in their official capacity. Correctly, the magistrate
judge recommends that the motion for summary judgment [#75] be granted on the
claims for damages against the defendants in their official capacities.
The defendants contend also that the plaintiff has not presented evidence of a
physical injury sufficient to support his Eighth Amendment claim. In the

2

recommendation, the magistrate judge reviews the evidence in the record and
concludes that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Small, the record
contains sufficient evidence of a physical injury. The analysis and conclusion of the
magistrate judge on this point are well circumstantiated.
Finally, the defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Government officials are immune from civil liability unless their actions violate “clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); see also Herring v. Keenan,
218 F.3d 1171, 1175 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 840 (2001). To overcome
this claim of immunity, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendants violated the
rights of the plaintiff under federal law and that such rights were clearly established at
the time of the violation. Greene v. Barrett, 174 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 1999).
The magistrate judge concludes, correctly, that, given the current record, the
defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Evaluating the evidence in the record
in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is patent that genuine issues of disputed material
fact exist as to whether the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment rights of Mr.
Small. In the prison context, the touchstone inquiry in an excessive force claim is
whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 978
(10th Cir.2001) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986)). Viewing the
evidence in the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Small, the evidence supports a
conclusion by a reasonable fact finder that the use of force by the defendants was not
necessary to maintain and restore discipline and was applied maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm. Such a use of force is a violation of the Eighth Amendment

3

rights of a prison inmate.
The defendants contend also that Mr. Small has not shown that the right in
question was clearly established at the time of the alleged used of excessive force.
Correctly, the magistrate judge concludes that the right of a prison inmate to be
protected from cruel and unusual punishment, including the use of excessive force by
guards, was clearly established at the time of the alleged incident. See, e.g., DeSpain,
264 F.3d at 978; Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 - 1524 (10th Cir.
1992).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#89] filed
June 9, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections [#99] of the defendants are overruled;
3. That the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#75] filed February
10, 2014, is GRANTED in part;
4. That all claims of the plaintiff in which the plaintiff seeks damages against the
defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED; and
5. That otherwise, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#75] filed
February 10, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated August 11, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4