Holland v. Perry et al
Filing
80
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion for Summary Judgment, with directions to the Clerk; directing the parties to confer about the possibility of settlement and notify the Court by July 29, 2021. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 6/22/2021. (BL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DANNY HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:17-cv-23-MMH-PDB
SERGEANT JAMIE WILLIAMS,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
I. Status
Plaintiff Danny R. Holland, while an inmate of the Florida penal
system, 1 initiated this action on January 9, 2017, by filing a pro se Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 1). He filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) on August 11,
2017, and a Second Amended Complaint (SAC; Doc. 14) with an attachment
(Doc. 14-1) on January 4, 2018. In the SAC, Holland asserts claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against Defendants Sergeant Jamie Williams, Brian
Forbes, and Lesley Johns. 2 He asserts that Defendants violated his federal
constitutional rights when Defendant Williams, along with four inmates,
The Florida Department of Corrections released Holland on February 3,
2020. See http://www.dc.state.fl.us/offenderSearch/detail.aspx.
1
2
See Order (Doc. 29) (correcting the names of the Doe Defendants).
physically assaulted Holland on January 11, 2015, at the Reception and
Medical Center (RMC); Forbes made comments and failed to intervene to stop
the assault; and Johns told Holland the next day that she would lock him up if
he left the dormitory. See Doc. 14-1 at 1-4. Holland states that he suffered
head, lower spine, rib, and right leg injuries as a result of the assault. See SAC
at 5. As relief, he requests monetary damages, “proper medical treatment,” and
a release from the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC). Id.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Forbes and Johns’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Motion; Doc. 75). They submitted their own
Declarations in support of the Motion. See Docs. 75-1, Declaration of Brian
Forbes (Forbes Decl.); 75-2, Declaration of Lesley Johns (Johns Decl.). The
Court advised Holland of the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,
notified him that the granting of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary
judgment would represent a final adjudication of this case which may foreclose
subsequent litigation on the matter, and gave him an opportunity to respond
to the Motion. See Order (Doc. 29). Holland filed a response in opposition to
the Motion. See Amended Motion; Response to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment; Affidavit in Support of Claim (Response; Doc. 78). The
Motion is ripe for review.
2
II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 3
Holland asserts that, on January 11, 2015, at approximately 9:30 p.m.,
Defendant Williams choked and beat Holland in RMC’s L dormitory because
Holland helped inmate Wagner with his legal work. See Doc. 14-1 at 1-4.
According to Holland, Defendant Forbes made comments about Holland and
watched Defendant Williams and four inmates hit and kick Holland. See id. at
1. Holland states that the following morning, Defendant Johns told Holland
and inmate Wagner that she would lock them up if they left the dormitory “for
any reason,” including for chow. Id. at 3. He avers that the RMC Inspector
removed him from the dormitory and placed him in a confinement cell where
he stayed for one month until the FDOC transferred him to Santa Rosa
Correctional Institution. See id. at 3-4.
III. Summary Judgment Standard
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules(s)), “[t]he
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The record to be considered on a
motion for summary judgment may include “depositions, documents,
3
The recited facts are drawn from the SAC.
3
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). 4 An
issue is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ.,
93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g
Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)). “[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support
of the non-moving party’s position is insufficient to defeat a motion for
summary judgment.” Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381
F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).
Rule 56 was revised in 2010 “to improve the procedures for presenting
and deciding summary-judgment motions.” Rule 56 advisory committee's note
2010 Amends.
4
The standard for granting summary judgment
remains unchanged. The language of subdivision (a)
continues to require that there be no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and that the movant be entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. The amendments will
not affect continuing development of the decisional law
construing and applying these phrases.
Id. “[A]lthough the interpretations in the advisory committee[’s] notes
are not binding, they are highly persuasive.” Campbell v. Shinseki, 546 F.
App’x 874, 879 n.3 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, case law construing the former Rule
56 standard of review remains viable.
4
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that there are no
genuine issues of material fact to be determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats &
Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). “When a moving party has
discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the
pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d
590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and “[o]nly disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will
properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court “must view
all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing
summary judgment.” Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)
(citing Dibrell Bros. Int’l, S.A. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, 38 F.3d 1571,
1578 (11th Cir. 1994)). “Summary judgment is improper, however, if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 920 F.3d 710, 720 (11th
Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
5
IV. Summary of the Arguments
In the Motion, Defendants Forbes and Johns maintain that there are no
genuine issues of material fact, and therefore, the Court should grant summary
judgment in their favor as to Holland’s Eighth Amendment claims against
them. See Motion at 6-7. They state that Holland’s allegations that they
verbally abused or threatened him fail to state a cognizable constitutional
claim. See id. Additionally, Defendant Forbes maintains that he “has never
failed to intervene while witnessing” an excessive-use-of-force incident, and
therefore is entitled to summary judgment in his favor. Id. at 7.
In his Response, Holland asserts that Defendants are not entitled to
summary judgment in their favor. See Response at 7-8. He states that there
are eyewitnesses to the incident, and the Inspector General’s investigative
reports “provide details of the incidents alleged with great detail.” Id. at 7.
According to Holland, he knows the whereabouts of eyewitnesses, and asks
that the Court “include additional witnesses as their whereabouts become
known” so he can “further corroborate” his claims. Id.
6
V. Analysis 5
In his SAC, Holland contends that Defendants Williams, Forbes, and
Johns violated his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
See SAC at 3. “The Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures encompasses the plain right to be free from the use of excessive
force in the course of an arrest.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 (11th Cir.
2002) (citation omitted); see Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (11th
Cir. 2021). The Eighth Amendment provides a freedom from cruel and unusual
punishments, and it “serves as the primary source of protection against
excessive force after conviction.” Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 923 F.3d 947,
952 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). And, the Fourteenth Amendment
“protects those who exist in the in-between—pretrial detainees.” Id. Here,
Holland asserts (and Defendants do not dispute) that he was a “[c]onvicted and
sentenced state prisoner” when the alleged excessive force occurred. SAC at 4.
For purposes of summary judgment, the Court views the evidence and all
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Thus, the
facts described in the Court’s analysis may differ from those that ultimately can be
proved.
5
7
As such, the Court will analyze Holland’s claims relating to the alleged assault
and failure to intervene under the Eighth Amendment.
According to Holland, Defendant Forbes made comments about Holland
as Forbes watched Defendant Williams and four inmates assault Holland. See
Doc. 14-1 at 1. Additionally, Holland states that after the assault, Defendant
Johns told Holland that she would lock him up if he left the dormitory. See id.
at 3. Defendants Forbes and Johns maintain that they are entitled to summary
judgment as to Holland’s claims against them and submitted declarations in
support of their position. In his Declaration, Defendant Forbes denies any
involvement in the January 11, 2015 alleged assault on Holland, stating in
pertinent part:
I am aware that I have been named as a
Defendant in the above styled lawsuit filed by former
inmate Danny Holland, as a result of an alleged
assault on him at the RMC Main Unit on or about
Jan[uary] 11, 2015.
Mr. Holland alleges that I witnessed a physical
assault on him on or about that date, by both former
Sgt. Jamie Williams and several unidentified inmates.
He alleges that I stood by, watched, and failed to
intervene to stop the assault.
I categorically deny those allegations.
I do not, and did not at any time in January 2015
or otherwise, know former inmate Danny Holland.
8
I never observed Danny Holland being abused or
beaten by any correctional officer or other inmate.
I have never failed to intervene while witnessing
an excessive use of force incident.
Nor have I ever failed to report an incident
where an inmate had physical injuries which were
otherwise not reported.
Nor have I ever ordered or directed any
correctional officer or inmate to abuse any other
inmate.
Accordingly, I deny that I violated Danny
Holland’s constitutional rights in any manner on
J[anuary] 11, 2015[,] or at any time.
Forbes Decl. at 1-2 (enumeration omitted). Additionally, in her Declaration,
Defendant Johns states in pertinent part:
I am aware that I have been named as a
Defendant in the above styled lawsuit filed by former
inmate Danny Holland, as a result of an alleged
assault on him at the RMC Main Unit on or about
Jan[uary] 11, 2015.
Mr. Holland alleges that after an incident
wherein he was assaulted by former Sgt. Jamie
Williams and other inmates, I came into his dormitory
and told him he could not leave the dormitory for any
reason, or I would [“]lock him up.[”]
I have no recollection of Danny Holland, or of
any conversation I may have had with him, regarding
the alleged incident at issue, or any other matter.
9
Additionally, I deny that I ever physically
abused Danny Holland on or about January 11, 2015,
or witnessed any correctional officer or other inmate
physically abuse him.
Accordingly, I deny that I violated Danny
Holland’s constitutional rights in any manner on
J[anuary] 11, 2015[,] or at any time.
Johns Decl. at 1-2 (enumeration omitted).
To defeat the Motion, Holland is required to present evidence to show
that there is a genuine issue for trial. In opposing Defendants’ Motion, Holland
asserts that “[t]he brutal details outlined in [his Declaration] preclude the
entry of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. See Response at 7-8. In his
seven-page Declaration, Holland expands upon the facts he provided in his
SAC. See Response at 1-7. He chronicles the days leading up to the January
11, 2015 alleged assault, and asserts that Defendants Williams, Forbes, and
Johns conspired to violate his federal constitutional rights. 6 See id. at 1. He
asserts that Forbes was present on January 11, 2015, when Williams yelled at
Holland and beat him because he had helped inmate Wagner with his legal
To the extent Holland asserts that Defendants Forbes and Johns
conspired with Defendant Williams to violate Holland’s federal constitutional
rights, it is improper for Holland to raise new claims through a brief opposing
summary judgment. See Williams-Evans v. Advance Auto Parts, 843 F. App’x
144, 150 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
6
10
work. See id. at 3-4, 6. Holland states that Forbes said, “you sure look different
now than when you first came in here.” Id. at 4. Additionally, he describes
Defendant Johns’ involvement, stating in pertinent part:
It was time for the next shift. Officer Lesley Johns
entered the dorm and yelled “inmate Terry Wagner, do
not leave this dorm for any reason, do not go to chow,
I’ll lock your ass up.” Then I heard Lesley Johns
say “Danny Holland do not leave this dorm, do
not go to chow, I’ll lock your ass up.” Later, an
Official in black clothing came in and yelled, “everyone
get on your bunks.” I heard him tell Terry Wagner go
to the day room. He started walking down the bunk
area asking names. As he approached me, I turned my
head so he wouldn’t see me. He asked the guy in front
of me, then as he was at me, he asked the guy behind
[me] what’s your name, then he said to me, what’s your
name[.] I just wanted it to all go way[.] I said Holland
sir. His reply was to get to the day room. When I was
in the day room[,] the Inspector was talking to Terry.
Some officers came and took Terry. The inspector
asked me questions, then said go to my bunk. After a
short time, Officer Lesley Johns came and opened my
bunk drawer taking items of mine packing me up.
You’re going to confinement. I said I’ve done nothing
wrong. It’s for your own good. I was placed in cuffs, and
taken to confinement, where I was placed in a shower
cell.
Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
As to any alleged verbal abuse (including threatening or demeaning
comments) or insulting gestures on the part of Defendants Forbes and Johns,
such allegations do not state a claim of federal constitutional dimension.
11
Hernandez v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 281 F. App’x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam). To the extent Holland alleges that Defendants Forbes and Johns
belittled him after the alleged beating, verbal taunts without more do not
deprive an inmate of his federal constitutional rights. See Paylan v. Dirks, 847
F. App’x 595, 601 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Nor can Holland’s
assessment of Forbes’ comment about Holland’s appearance support “an
inference of deliberate indifference.” Bismark v. Fisher, 213 F. App’x 892, 897
(11th Cir. 2007) (“It is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment for a prison
physician to consult with a prisoner concerning a medical condition in an aloof
or unfriendly way. Much more is required.”) (citation and footnote omitted). As
such, Defendants’ Motion is due to be granted as to Holland’s verbal abuse
claims against Defendants Forbes and Johns.
As to Holland’s failure-to-intervene claim against Defendant Forbes, the
law is well-established that a corrections officer has a duty to intervene when
he witnesses a fellow officer’s use of excessive force against an inmate and is
in a position to intervene. See Helm v. Rainbow City, Ala., 989 F.3d 1265, 1272
(11th Cir. 2021) (citing Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 924-27
(11th Cir. 2000)). “Of course, there also must be an underlying constitutional
violation. Plainly, an officer cannot be liable for failing to stop or intervene
when there was no constitutional violation being committed.” Sebastian v.
12
Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301, 1312 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Notably, a
failure-to-intervene claim is “wholly dependent on the underlying excessive
force claim.” Id. In the instant case, the failure-to-intervene claim against
Defendant Forbes necessarily turns on whether Williams choked and hit
Holland in Forbes’ presence. Because genuine issues of material fact remain
as to whether Defendant Forbes saw the alleged beating and could have
stopped it, Defendants’ Motion is due to be denied as to Holland’s failure-tointervene claim against Defendant Forbes.
VI. Plaintiff’s Request (Doc. 78)
In his Response, Holland asks that the Court “include additional
witnesses as their whereabouts become known” so he can “further corroborate”
his claims. Response at 7. Preliminarily, the Court notes that a request for
affirmative relief is not properly made when simply included in a response to
a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); see also Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962,
965 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1222
(11th Cir. 1999)).
Moreover, even if it were proper to include such a request in the
Response, the request is otherwise due to be denied for failure to comply with
Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), United States District Court, Middle District
of Florida (Local Rule(s)). Local Rule 3.01(a) requires a memorandum of legal
13
authority in support of a request from the Court. See Local Rule 3.01(a). Local
Rule 3.01(g) requires certification that the moving party has conferred with
opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issue raised by the motion
and advising the Court whether opposing counsel agrees to the relief
requested. See Local Rule 3.01(g). Thus, the Court will not entertain Holland’s
request for relief included in the Response. Holland is advised that, if he wishes
to pursue such relief, he is required to file an appropriate motion in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
Notably, any such motion would likely be due to be denied for undue delay
given the age and procedural posture of the case.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
Defendants Forbes and Johns’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 75) is GRANTED as to Holland’s verbal abuse claims against them.
Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.
2.
The Clerk shall terminate Defendant Lesley Johns and make the
appropriate notation on the docket.
3.
Plaintiff’s request for additional eyewitnesses, see Response at 7,
is DENIED without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion.
14
4.
The parties must confer in good faith to discuss the issues and the
possibility of settlement as to Holland’s remaining claims against Defendants
Jamie Williams and Brian Forbes. 7 No later than July 29, 2021, the parties
must notify the Court whether they are able to reach a settlement. If the
parties are unable to settle the case privately among themselves, they must
notify the Court if they wish to have the case referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. Otherwise, the Court will enter
a case management order, set a trial date, and direct the parties to begin trial
preparations.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of June,
2021.
sc 6/21
c:
Danny Holland
Counsel of Record
Holland’s remaining claims are: (1) First Amendment retaliation
claims against Defendants Williams and Forbes; (2) an Eighth Amendment
excessive-use-of-force claim against Williams; and (3) a failure-to-intervene
claim against Forbes.
15
7
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?