MENGESHA v. STOKES et al

Filing 62

ORDER. Magistrate Judge's 55 Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, and the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 39 , is granted in part and denied in part. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Miles Davis for a settlement conference to be conducted within ninety (90) days. Trial will be scheduled by separate order. Signed by JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 06/27/2018. (MB)

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
KIDANE B. MENGESHA,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:16cv446-MCR-GRJ

MARCUS J. STOKES, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation dated November 22, 2017, ECF No. 55, recommending
that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was
afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court has made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.
ECF No. 58. See Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513
(11th Cir. 1990) (stating de novo review “require[s] independent consideration of
factual issues based on the record”).

Having considered the Report and

Recommendation, the objections, and the record, the Court has determined that the

Page 2 of 4

Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Defendants argue that their
summary judgment motion should have been denied as moot in light of the amended
complaint, but this was not required. The Court finds that judicial economy was well
served by considering the motion with regard to the amended complaint because no
new claims were asserted. The only addition was a request for “such other relief” to
which Plaintiff may be entitled, which the Magistrate Judge construed as a request for
nominal damages. The Court disagrees with the Defendants’ contention that this so
fundamentally altered the claim that their prior motion for summary judgment must
be considered moot. This objection is overruled.
Defendants also object on grounds that the Magistrate Judge did not analyze
the physical injury under § 1997e(e). The Report and Recommendation sets forth the
relevant law and analyzed the facts under the relevant standards, while fully
recognizing, as has the Eleventh Circuit, that “the meaning of the phrase ‘greater than
de minimis’ . . . is far from clear.”1 Chatham v. Alcock, 334 F. App’x 281, 283 (11th

1

The Prison Litigation Reform Act does not define physical injury. Dixon v. Toole, 225 F.
App’x 797, 799 (11th Cir. 2007). However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Eleventh Circuit has
instructed that to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), “a prisoner’s claims for emotional or mental
injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis.”
Mann v. McNeil, 360 F. App’x 31, 31 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312–13 (11th Cir. 2002)). The injuries need not be “significant,”
but mere discomfort is insufficient. See Dixon, 225 F. App’x at 799; Harris v. Garner, 190 F. 3d
1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 1999), op. reinstated in part on rehearing, 216 F.3d 970 (2000).
Case No. 3:16cv446-MCR-GRJ

Page 3 of 4

Cir. 2009). After a de novo review of the record and the law, the Court finds that the
analysis is correct.
The Defendants argue that swelling, bruises and an abrasion–the only
documented injuries–are not sufficient under § 1997e(e). They also object to the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that they did not dispute the claim of shoulder dislocation,
arguing they disputed it by showing the lack of medical evidence to support it, and
they contend that the Plaintiff cannot create a question of fact based
uncorroborated allegations.

The objections will be overruled.

on

Credibility

determinations are not proper on summary judgment, and even self-serving testimony
can be a basis for denying summary judgment. See United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d
853, 858 (11th Cir. 2018) (noting that “a plaintiff’s own testimony may be sufficient
to withstand summary judgment” and no corroboration is required under Rule 56).
Plaintiff’s testimony is neither conclusory nor is it necessarily inconsistent with the
medical records in this case. Although no shoulder dislocation was noted in medical
records from the incident, Plaintiff testified that the guards used force to pop his
shoulder back into place instead of providing him medical assistance and states he
suffered extreme pain. This testimony, together with his recorded history of shoulder
dislocation and noted swelling, bruises and an abrasion on the day in question, is
sufficient to give rise to a question of fact as to whether Plaintiff suffered an injury
Case No. 3:16cv446-MCR-GRJ

Page 4 of 4

that rose above the de minimis level. Moreover, even if compensable injury
ultimately is not found, “nothing in § 1997e(e) prevents a prisoner from recovering
nominal damages for a constitutional violation without a showing of physical injury.”
Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order, and the Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 39, is granted in part and denied in part.

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are
dismissed.

3.

Plaintiff’s sexual abuse claims against Defendants Pugh, West, and
Lathan in their individual capacities are dismissed.

4.

Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims against Defendants in their
individual capacities are dismissed.

5.

The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Miles Davis for a settlement
conference to be conducted within ninety (90) days. Trial will be
scheduled by separate order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June 2018.

M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:16cv446-MCR-GRJ