Butler v. Jones et al
Filing
89
ORDER granting 59 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 79 and 84 Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions; directions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 3/5/2020. (JLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DARRELL WAYNE BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:18-cv-293-J-32JRK
WILLIAM B. BLITCH, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
I.
Status
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, is proceeding on a pro se
Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) raising claims of excessive force and failure to
intervene against Defendants Blitch, Butler, Lee, and Tomlin. Before the Court
is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). In support of their
Motion, Defendants submitted a transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition (Doc. 59-1),
a use of force packet (Doc. 59-2), a handheld video of the cell extraction, an audio
clip of Plaintiff’s, Sergeant Wesley Rogers’, and Sergeant Austin Merritt’s
interviews with the Inspector General,1 and the Declaration of Dr. Timothy
Whalen (Doc. 59-4). Plaintiff was advised of the provisions of Federal Rule of
Sergeant Rogers and Sergeant Merritt were part of the cell extraction team.
They are not, however, named as defendants in this case.
1
Civil Procedure 56, as well as that the granting of a motion for summary
judgment would result in the termination of this case. See Order (Doc. 8).
Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition (Doc. 76) with exhibits, including his
Declaration (Doc. 76-1), Statement of Disputed Facts (Doc. 76-2), some
discovery documents and Court filings, his deposition, the incident report, and
some medical and mental health records.
II.
Parties’ Positions
Plaintiff alleges as follows in the Complaint:
On October 6, 2017 at about 5:45 PM[,]
defendant Blitch approached the plaintiff in front of
the shower on the 1100 side of I-Wing. At which time
defendant Blitch ordered plaintiff to submit to hand
restraints for re-location to the medical clinic for
placement on “SHOS”[2] status.3
Plaintiff Butler then advised defendant Blitch
he would submit to handcuffs immediately following
his personal property being procedurally inventoried
in the plaintiff[’s] presence[ p]rior to being separated
from such. Defendant Blitch refused to honor the
plaintiff[’s] advisement.
Defendant Blitch left and reappeared with a
“Cell Extraction Team,” opened the shower door and
stood outside the shower and allowed and permitted
his subordinates to utilize improper excessive
physical, malicious and sadistic force to deliberately
2
Self Harm Observation Status.
Plaintiff had previously declared a psychological emergency and upon a
doctor’s order, he was being placed on SHOS status. See Doc. 59-1 at 4-5.
3
2
cause pain, serious harm, and extensive injury to the
plaintiff.
During such unprovo[ked] assault[,] defendant
Blitch eye-witnessed [and] he failed to cease his
insubordinates from illegally beating the plaintiff with
handcuffs and naked fist to which the plaintiff
sustained large gashes, lacerations, permanent
scarring to the face, scalp, etc. and numerous bruises
and abrasions to his left arm.
Doc. 1 at 8-9 (paragraph enumeration omitted). Plaintiff then details the acts
of each Defendant who was a member of the cell extraction team.
On October 6, 2017 defendant Tomlin spoke
death threats of how he was going to beat the
[plaintiff] prior to dressing up in riot gear. When
defendant Tomlin entered the shower dressed in riot
gear on the 1100 side he first began beating the
plaintiff[’s] left hand and wrist with steel handcuffs.
After the defendant Tomlin gained his way inside the
shower[,] he immediately started brutally beating the
plaintiff in the face, scalp, with iron handcuffs which
caused the plaintiff to sustain large gashes, and
lacerations and the los[s] of much essence of life
(blood).
On October 6, 2017 defendant R. Lee entered
into the 1100 side shower wearing riot gear. Once he
entered the shower[,] he started beating the plaintiff
in the face with his naked fist which caused the
plaintiff to sustain a loose tooth and a large gash to the
right side of the plaintiff[’s] right eye.
On October 6, 2017 defendant Butler was the
lead officer wearing riot gear and holding a large
shield. Defendant Butler applied physical pressure to
gain entry inside the 1100 side shower[. O]nce he
made his way into the shower[,] he and the plaintiff
ended up on top of the tile wall and the plaintiff
3
observed the defendant Butler taking a punch at the
plaintiff[’s] facial area with his naked fist. The
defendant[’s] actions caused the plaintiff to sustain a
blackeye.
On October 6, 2017 after the use of force
occurred[,] Defendants Blitch, Tomlin, R. Lee, and Sgt.
Butler all escorted the plaintiff out of I-Wing[, and]
down the corridor into the clinic for treatment to which
the plaintiff refused treatment due to trauma, but
requested for photos of his injuries and appearance.
But the staff in medical and security denied the
plaintiff[’s] request.
Thereafter, the defendants then escorted the
plaintiff into the shower area inside the clinic and
strip[] searched the plaintiff then placed the plaintiff
into “SHOS” cell A-1102.
Id. at 9-10. As relief, he seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Id.
at 11.
In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that they are
entitled to qualified immunity because they were performing discretionary
functions, they did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate a physical injury sufficient to state a claim for
compensatory or punitive damages. See Doc. 59. Defendants contend that
“Plaintiff refused a lawful command to submit to hand restraints,” the cell
“extraction team was called,” and they used force to obtain Plaintiff’s
compliance with a lawful command. Id. at 5. In the Report of Force Used and
Incident Reports, Defendant Blitch; each cell extraction team member,
4
including all Defendants; and others provided a narrative summary of what
occurred. See Doc. 59-2 at 1-3, 8-17. The narratives are largely the same.
Defendant Blitch was the shift supervisor during the cell extraction. His
comment on the Incident Report reads as follows:
Organized physical force was utilized on
[Plaintiff] due to [Plaintiff] refusing to submit to
handcuffing procedures to carry out the orders of Dr.
George Emanoilidis. Dr. G. Emanoilidis ordered for
[Plaintiff] to be placed on SHOS Status due to his
suicidal gestures. At approximately 5:26PM, LPN K.
Burgin utilized her Crisis Intervention Techniques to
bring [Plaintiff] into compliance with a lawful
command, to no avail. At approximately 5:31 PM,
Warden Barry Reddish was contacted and authorized
the use of forced cell extraction team to carry out Dr.
G. Ema[n]oilidis[’] orders as written to bring [Plaintiff]
into compliance with a lawful command. Camera
Operator #1, Officer Patrick Moore, commenced
filming at approximately 5:43PM. At this time, I
conducted a self-introduction and opening statement.
The forced cell extraction team conducted an
introduction; video recording was continuous until the
conclusion of the incident. I ordered the team members
to utilize the minimal amount of force necessary to
bring [Plaintiff] into compliance with lawful
commands. At approximately 5:45PM, I ordered
[Plaintiff] to submit to handcuffing procedures or the
forced cell extraction team would be utilized to bring
him into compliance, to no avail. At approximately
5:46pm, I unlocked and opened the shower stall door
and [Plaintiff] lunged towards the shower bars causing
the protective shield to strike [Plaintiff] in the facial
area. [Plaintiff] then grasped the shower bars refusing
to place his hands behind his back, so hand restraints
could be applied. Sergeant Tomlin then delivered
several distractionary blows to [Plaintiff’s] forearms
causing [Plaintiff] to relinquish his grasp of the
5
shower bars. Sergeant Butler and Sergeant Merritt
then forced [Plaintiff] to the back of the shower and
inadvertently tripped over the shower curb causing
[Plaintiff] to strike his head on the back shower wall
and the shower floor. [Plaintiff] continued to provide
resistance refusing to submit to handcuffing
procedures. Sergeant Merritt was able to apply the
right hand restraint. [Plaintiff] continued to provide
resistance by grasping his state issue[d] blue shirt
with his left hand refusing all orders to submit to hand
restraints. At this time, Sergeant Merritt delivered
one closed fist strike to [Plaintiff’s] upper left forearm
causing [Plaintiff] to relinquish his grasp of his state
issued blue shirt so the hand restraints could be
applied. At approximately 5:47 PM, the team members
were able to apply the remaining restraints [and] all
force ceased. [Plaintiff] was assisted to his feet. Upon
arriving on the second floor of I-Wing, the waist chain,
black box and red lock were applied. At approximately
5:52PM, [Plaintiff] refused a post use of force physical
but was visually assessed by RN[] A. Turbyfill with the
following injuries: abrasion to the forehead. [Plaintiff]
received a clean SHOS Shroud and was re-housed in
cell A-1101s, on SHOS status. I conducted a closing
statement and Camera Operator #1 ceased filming.
During the filming, [Plaintiff] alleged that staff used
excessive force during this incident which is refuted
d[ue] to this incident being captured on handheld
camera[. A]t no time was there any wrong doing by
staff. All staff received post use of force physicals with
no injuries noted. At approximately 6:20PM, Warden
Barry Reddish[] was notified of the amount of force
utilized. At approximately 6:26PM, EAC Duty Officer
Angel was contacted and issued EAC#2017-10-28078.
[Plaintiff] received (2) two Disciplinary reports for “61” “Disobeying a verbal order” written by Sergeant
William Fishley and myself. [Plaintiff’s] property was
inventoried by Sergeant Fishley and Officer Sean
Hanson and secured in the property room. A (DC6220) “Inmate Impound of Personal property” and A
(DC6-163) “Close management privilege suspension”
6
was completed. Camera Operator #1, Officer P. Moore,
downloaded the recording to DVD#A-5473. Officer P.
Moore completed a DC1-801 and placed it, along with
the DVD, in the video recording drop box. Forward to
Chief of Security.
Id. at 8-9.
According to Defendant Butler, who was the #1 team member who
entered the shower cell holding the shield, when the cell door was opened,
Plaintiff “lunged towards the shower bars causing the protective shield to strike
[Plaintiff] in the facial area, [and Plaintiff] then grasped the shower bars with
both hands.” Id. at 1. Defendant Butler continues:
I relinquished the protective shield and grasped
[Plaintiff] around the torso with both arms while
clasping my hands and pulled [him] to the back of the
shower cell in an attempt to break [his] grasp, to no
avail. Sergeant Teddy Tomlin then delivered several
distractionary blows to [Plaintiff’s] forearms, breaking
[Plaintiff’s] grasp. At this time, with the assistance of
Sergeant Austin Merritt we forced [Plaintiff] to the
back of the shower stall. Upon forcing [Plaintiff] to the
back of the shower I inadvertently tripped over the
shower curb, causing [Plaintiff] to strike his head
against the shower wall and floor. I maintained my
hold of [Plaintiff] until all restraints were applied.
Once all restraints were applied all force ceased.
Doc. 59-2 at 1.
Defendant Tomlin, who was the #2 team member, stated that when he
was delivering the “distractionary blows” to Plaintiff’s forearms, he
“inadvertently had the hand restraints in [his] closed fist but never made
7
contact with the hand restraints to [Plaintiff’s] forearms.” Id. at 3. Sergeant
Merritt, the #3 team member, who is not a defendant in this case, stated that
after Defendant Butler and Plaintiff “inadvertently tripped over the shower
curb,” Plaintiff “continued to provide resistance.” Id. At that time, Sergeant
Merritt, “grasped [Plaintiff] by the right arm and was able to apply the right
hand restraint. [Plaintiff] then grasped his state issued blue shirt with his right
hand and refused all orders to relinquish his grasp so the restraint could be
applied.” Id. Sergeant Merritt then “struck [Plaintiff] in the upper left forearm
causing [him] to relinquish his grasp.” Id. Defendant Lee, the #5 team member,
stated that after Defendant Butler and Plaintiff “inadvertently tripped over the
shower curb,” he “grasped [Plaintiff] by the lower extremities and assisted
Sergeant Wesley Rogers in applying the leg restraints.” Id. Defendant Lee
“repositioned [his] grasp and assisted Sergeant Butler in pinning [Plaintiff] to
the shower stall floor. [Plaintiff] continued to provide resistance by grasping his
state issued blue shirt refusing all orders to submit to hand restraints.” Id. All
Defendants agree that once all restraints were applied, all force ceased. Id. at
1, 3.
A handheld video captured the entire cell extraction. The video begins
with Defendant Blitch giving an introductory statement and the cell extraction
team members introducing themselves and explaining their duties upon
8
entering the cell.4 Each team member stated he was trained in forced cell
extractions. Defendant Blitch advises the team members to use the minimal
amount of force necessary. The cell extraction team then calmly walks in an
organized fashion to the shower cell where Plaintiff is located.
At about the 2:55 minute mark on the video, Defendant Blitch gives
Plaintiff a final order to submit to hand restraints and be housed on SHOS, and
Defendant Blitch advises Plaintiff that his failure to do so will result in the cell
extraction team being utilized. Plaintiff is standing right at the cell door, but he
does not put his hands through the slot to be handcuffed. He says something
but it cannot be heard on the video.
At about the 3:06 minute mark, the cell door is opened and Plaintiff
clearly charges the cell extraction team member holding the shield (Defendant
Butler). Plaintiff is ordered to “stop resisting” while the cell extraction team
members attempt to force Plaintiff back into the cell by pushing on each other.
Although Plaintiff cannot be seen, it is obvious from the Defendants’ positions
and body movements that Plaintiff is actively pushing against them. Defendant
Defendant Butler is the #1 person on the cell extraction team. His duties
included using the shield to pin the inmate to the wall or floor until restraints
could be applied. Defendant Tomlin is the #2 team member, and his
responsibilities, along with the #3 team member who is not a defendant,
included Plaintiff’s upper extremities and applying hand restraints. Defendant
Lee is the #5 person. His responsibilities, along with the #4 team member who
is not a defendant, included Plaintiff’s lower extremities.
4
9
Blitch ordered the team to push Plaintiff back into the cell and to get the shield
out. Plaintiff is ordered multiple times to stop resisting and to put his hands
behind his back.
Starting around the 3:40 minute mark, Plaintiff is given several warnings
to stop resisting and to let go of the shield. A cell extraction team member
(Defendant Tomlin) can be seen using distractionary punches to get Plaintiff to
release his grasp.5 While using the distractionary punches, Defendant Tomlin
has a pair of handcuffs in his hand. About 7 seconds later (3:47 minute mark),
Plaintiff and some members of the cell extraction team move from the front
corner of the cell to the floor on the opposite back side of the cell, and around
the 3:50 minute mark, the shield is taken out of the cell. Plaintiff is given
multiple orders to stop resisting and give the officers his hand, and one of the
team members announced that handcuffs were on at about the 4:25 minute
mark. Less than 10 seconds later, the leg irons were on and Plaintiff is assisted
to his feet. The entire incident from the time the cell door was opened to the
time Plaintiff was being assisted to his feet was approximately 1 minute and 29
seconds.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he was holding onto the shower cell bars, although
this cannot be seen on the video. Defendant Blitch was ordering Plaintiff to let
go of the shield at this time, but Defendant Blitch was not inside the cell.
5
10
When Plaintiff exits the cell, he has blood on his head, face, arms, and
hands. Plaintiff is escorted to medical where he refused treatment. He was then
taken to a shower cell, strip searched, given a change of clothes, and placed in
SHOS housing.
Defendants submitted the Declaration of Dr. Whalen, a medical doctor
employed by the Department, who averred that he reviewed Plaintiff’s medical
records. Doc. 59-4 at 1. He asserts that the abrasion Plaintiff received on his
forehead “was noted to be midline and superficial in the subsequent SHOS stay.
There was no mention of a black eye at the initial evaluation or the subsequent
SHOS stay[, and a]t no time was there any mention of a loose or broken tooth.”
Id. at 1-2. On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. G. Espino. See Doc.
76-6 at 6. Plaintiff had “multiple complaints” but upon examination, Dr. Espino
indicated that there was “no obvious sequelae of any injuries sustained on Oct
6 ‘17 incident” and no treatment was warranted. Id.
III.
Standard of Review
“‘Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.’” Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.
2016) (quoting Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc., 764 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir.
2014)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
11
nonmoving party.” Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc., 882 F.3d 1358, 1362
(11th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted); see Hornsby-Culpepper v.
Ware, 906 F.3d 1302, 1311 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is
no genuine issue for trial.” (quotations and citation omitted)). In considering a
summary judgment motion, the Court views “the evidence and all reasonable
inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Hornsby-Culpepper, 906 F.3d at 1311 (quotations and citation omitted).
“[W]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its
opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (footnote and citation omitted); see Winborn v.
Supreme Beverage Co. Inc., 572 F. App’x 672, 674 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)
(“If the movant satisfies the burden of production showing that there is no
genuine issue of fact, ‘the nonmoving party must present evidence beyond the
pleadings showing that a reasonable jury could find in its favor.’” (quoting
Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008)). “A ‘mere scintilla’ of
evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be
enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.” Loren
v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Walker v. Darby, 911
F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted)).
12
Moreover, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which
is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe
it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). In
cases involving video evidence, the Court will accept the video’s depiction of the
events if the video “obviously contradicts” the opposing party’s version of events.
See Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010); see
also Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that
“where an accurate video recording completely and clearly contradicts a party’s
testimony, that testimony becomes incredible”). “But where the recording does
not clearly depict an event or action, and there is evidence going both ways on
it, we take the [the non-movant’s] version of what happened.” Shaw v. City of
Selma, 884 F.3d 1093, 1097 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018).
IV.
Discussion
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual
punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. “[T]he core judicial inquiry is . . . 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,
7 (1992). “If force is used ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of
causing harm,’ then it necessarily shocks the conscience.” Cockrell v. Sparks,
510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Brown v. Smith, 813
13
F.2d 1187, 1188 (11th Cir. 1987)). Courts consider the following factors when
analyzing whether force was used maliciously and sadistically:
(1) “the extent of injury”; (2) “the need for
application of force”; (3) “the relationship between that
need and the amount of force used”; (4) “any efforts
made to temper the severity of a forceful response”;
and (5) “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff
and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the
responsible officials on the basis of facts known to
them.”
Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1375 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Whitley v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). “When considering these factors, [courts] ‘give
a wide range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline and
security, including when considering decisions made at the scene of a
disturbance.’” Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (quoting Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1311).
“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments
necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical
force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience
of mankind.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a
federal cause of action.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). “While a lack of serious injury
is relevant to the inquiry, ‘[i]njury and force . . . are only imperfectly correlated
and it is the latter that ultimately counts.’” Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 524
14
F. App’x 511, 513 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38
(2010)). “A prisoner may avoid summary judgment, ‘only if the evidence viewed
in the light most favorable to him goes beyond a mere dispute over the
reasonableness of the force used and will support a reliable inference of
wantonness in the infliction of pain.’” Stallworth v. Tyson, 578 F. App’x 948, 953
(11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown, 813 F.2d at 1188).
Plaintiff acknowledges that he refused to submit to hand restraints,
because he first wanted his personal property to be inventoried in his presence.
Staff attempted to gain Plaintiff’s compliance before using any kind of forceful
response. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that “security came down . . . and he
ordered me to cuff up.” Doc. 59-1 at 2. Plaintiff made a request to Captain
McCray that his property be inventoried, but his request was “disregarded.” Id.
Defendant Blitch then came and ordered Plaintiff to cuff up, but Plaintiff
refused. Id.; Doc. 1 at 8. Plaintiff further acknowledges that Defendant Blitch
left, and when he returned, the cell extraction team was with him. Doc. 59-1 at
2; Doc. 1 at 8. Before approaching Plaintiff’s cell, at a minimum, Defendants
knew that Plaintiff was refusing to submit to hand restraints to be placed on
SHOS per a doctor’s order and refusing housing.
The video shows Defendant Blitch giving Plaintiff another opportunity to
submit to hand restraints, but Plaintiff again refused. Plaintiff’s own actions
necessitated a need for force. Plaintiff appeared calm when the cell extraction
15
team approached, however, the video shows that as soon as the cell door opened,
Plaintiff charged the team members. Plaintiff acknowledged during his
interview with the Inspector General’s Office and in his deposition that he was
holding onto the shower bars and Defendant Tomlin used distractionary
punches “to get [him] to release [his] hand from the bars.” Doc. 59-1 at 5.6
There is no dispute that Defendant Tomlin used distractionary punches
to gain Plaintiff’s compliance and that while he did so, he had handcuffs in his
hand. These punches do not appear on the video to be intended to deliver harm.
Sergeant Merritt also acknowledges using one fist strike to Plaintiff’s left arm
to force Plaintiff to release his grasp on his clothing so Sergeant Merritt could
place the handcuffs on his one hand. Despite being in a chaotic situation in a
confined space, the video depicts the extraction team as relatively calm and
professional while attempting to fully restrain Plaintiff. Once it was announced
that handcuffs and leg irons were on, all force ceased and Plaintiff was assisted
to his feet. The entire incident lasted about 1 minute and 29 seconds.
Prison officials followed good practice and videotaped the entire cell
extraction and the aftermath. While the handheld video does not show every
move made by each Defendant or by Plaintiff, it documents the scenario
Plaintiff claims that he was holding onto the shower bars because before the
team entered the cell, Defendant Tomlin was threatening him. Doc. 59-1 at 23, 5; see Doc. 1 at 9.
6
16
sufficiently to give an objective view of what happened and “obviously
contradicts” Plaintiff’s version of events. Pourmoghani-Esfahani, 625 F.3d at
1315.7
Plaintiff alleges that he had the following injuries: “numerous bruises and
abrasions to his left arm”; “large gashes[] and lacerations”; “los[s] of much
essence of life (blood)”; “permanent scarring to the face, scalp, etc.”; “a loose
tooth and a large gash to the right side of [his] eye”; and a “blackeye.” Doc. 1 at
9-10. However, immediately after the use of force, Plaintiff was taken directly
to the medical unit where he refused to be examined or treated by the medical
staff, so the nurse could only document the injury she could readily see: an
abrasion on Plaintiff’s forehead. Doc. 59-2 at 4-5. Plaintiff obviously has some
injury in light of the blood, but the video does not depict the location of the
injury. The video shows blood on Plaintiff’s head, face, right arm, and hands,
but also shows him walking, including up a flight of stairs and down a long
hallway, to the medical unit after the use of force and getting undressed and
dressed without difficulty.
Plaintiff did not request any medical attention until ten days after the
incident, when, on October 16, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a sick-call request
stating that he “sustained multiple gashes to the forehead, right side of eye, and
The location of the video camera was necessitated by the situation. It is not
practical to expect the video camera could have been located inside the cell.
7
17
top of the head,” which were causing “dizz[i]ness, blurred vision, [and] excessive
headch[e]s.” Doc. 76-6 at 8 (some capitalization omitted). On October 31, 2017,
Dr. Espino examined Plaintiff and found that there were no obvious
consequences of any injury sustained on October 6, 2017, and that no treatment
was warranted. See Doc. 76-6 at 6.
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. The
undisputed evidence establishes that Defendants were justified in using force
to accomplish a legitimate security interest, i.e., to obtain Plaintiff’s compliance
with the order to submit to hand restraints, and that, at worst, Plaintiff received
minimal injuries consistent with the amount of force which was necessary to
restrain him. Defendants were forced to react to Plaintiff’s initial physical
attack, and they were required to make split-second decisions to complete their
mission: to gain Plaintiff=s compliance using the minimal amount of force
necessary. Defendants could not predict when, or if, Plaintiff would become
compliant, and even if Plaintiff stopped resisting, staff was still required to
maintain control of the situation in case Plaintiff decided to become aggressive
and/or resistant again. They did this in a confined space, yet they executed their
set protocol in a structured manner and used a reasonable amount of force given
the threat with which they were faced.
“Although [the Court] cannot pinpoint with precision the amount of force
used by [Defendants], the fact that there was no more than minimal injury, that
18
some amount of force was justified under the circumstances, and that the force
was used for a legitimate security purpose persuades [the Court] that the
evidence in this case raises only a ‘mere dispute over the reasonableness of the
particular use of force’ and could not support ‘a reliable inference of wantonness
in the infliction of pain.’” Brown, 813 F.2d at 1189-90 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S.
at 322). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff shows that
no reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in Defendants’
favor.8 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is
GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against
Plaintiff.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 79) and Motion to Enforce
Sanctions (Doc. 84) are DENIED. Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions
against Defendants for failing to preserve and/or produce certain evidence,
including fixed wing video evidence, the handcuffs Defendant Tomlin used “as
brass knuckles when he utilized distractionary blows upon the Plaintiff,” and
Given that no excessive force was used, Plaintiff cannot maintain a failure to
intervene claim against Defendant Blitch.
8
19
the clothing and bedding he wore while on SHOS status from October 6-11,
2017. The Court has reviewed the Motions and Defendants’ Responses (Docs.
83, 85) and finds no basis for granting the relief requested.
3.
The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 5th day of March,
2020.
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge
JAX-3 3/5
c:
Darrell Wayne Butler, #419331
Counsel of Record
20
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?