Dees v. Smith et al

Filing 85

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Patrick Ferguson, Angela Smith, James Daniel Sisk; denying 69 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Rodney Dees.Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12-2-14. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODNEY DEES, N93497
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-cv-00625-SMY-PMF

ANGELA SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc.
81) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court grant defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 69). Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 84) to the R & R. For the following reasons, the
Court adopts the R & R and grants defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Because Plaintiff filed an
objection to the R & R, the Court will review the record de novo.

Dees is an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center serving a life sentence for murder. On
May 15, 2012 Dees filed a civil rights lawsuit (Doc. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that his constitutional rights were violated by prison staff while he was an inmate at Tamms
Correctional Center (“Tamms”). The 28 U.S.C. § 1915A merits review (Doc. 8) held that the
plaintiff articulated the following colorable claims:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against McCann, Sisk, and Ferguson based on
excessive force,
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against McCann, Sisk, and Ferguson based on
deliberate indifference to medical needs.
All three defendants seek summary judgment as to Count 2. They argue that their actions
did not violate plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and that they are entitled to qualified
immunity. The defendants are not seeking summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The
plaintiff’s motion seeks summary judgment on both counts.
The incidents that form the basis of this litigation occurred shortly after noon on June 24,
2011 at Tamms. Dees had just spent about an hour and a half in the yard. It was then time for
him to return to his cell, and so Sisk and Smith arrived with the leg shackles and handcuffs. The
door out to the yard includes a chuckhole where an inmate can place their hands to be cuffed or
uncuffed. From outside in the yard, Dees placed his hands inside through the chuckhole to be
cuffed. After his hands were cuffed, he came inside and Sisk put the leg shackles on. Dees
contends that Sisk tightened the handcuffs and shackles unnecessarily tight. After Dees was
shackled and handcuffed, he was led up a flight of stairs towards his cell by Sisk and Smith.
During the walk to the cell Dees was in pain and had to take “baby steps” because of the
tightened shackles. Dees complained to Sisk and Smith that the handcuffs and shackles were too

2

tight. Along the way Dees also yelled to Lieutenant Ferguson that the shackles and handcuffs
were too tight. Sisk proceeded to shove Dees forward up the stairs and the three shortly arrived at
the cell. Sisk released the leg shackles and Dees then walked into the cell by himself.
When the cell door closed, Dees placed his hands through the door chuckhole so that the
handcuffs could be taken off. Sisk first unlocked the handcuff from Dees’ left wrist, and then at
that point a struggle ensued. Dees contends that Sisk pulled his right arm out through the
chuckhole and twisted it as a form of punishment. The day before this all occurred, Dees was
admonished by Sisk for yelling at the guards. An inmate down the hall from Dees was a suicide
risk, and Dees yelled to the guards that he thought that the inmate may be attempting suicide.
Dees states that the tightened cuffs and struggle through the chuckhole were committed in
retaliation for involving himself in the situation with the suicidal inmate. However, Sisk
contends that Dees attempted to pull the handcuffs through the chuckhole into his cell, and Sisk
pulled his arm out so that he could unlock the handcuff from Dees’ right wrist.
The struggle through the chuckhole lasted between one to three minutes. With Sisk ahold
of Dees’ arm, Dees yelled out to Ferguson for help. Ferguson quickly arrived to defuse the
situation and he unlocked the handcuff. The fracas ultimately resulted in a scratch to Dees’ right
wrist, a minor cut to Dees’ head where his head hit the chuckhole, and a sore shoulder. There
was some slight bleeding from the scratch on the right wrist and the cut to the head. After the
handcuff was unlocked, Dees told Ferguson that he needed to see a nurse. He also notified Smith
and Sisk that he would like to see a nurse, and the nurse finally arrived at around 5:00 P.M that
evening. The Nurse gave Dees some ointment, and she returned at 9:00 P.M. that same day with
some Tylenol or Ibuprofen. A few days later Dees was again seen by health care staff for the
sore shoulder. He was given Motrin for the shoulder and was back to normal within a week.

3

Magistrate Judge Frazier filed his R & R (Doc. 81) on October 21, 2014, in which he
recommended the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Dees’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Frazier noted that Plaintiff failed
to provide evidence that he was suffering from an objectively serious medical condition.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “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); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int’l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Chelios v.
Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
The Eighth Amendment imposes liability on prison officials who “intentionally disregard
a known, objectively serious medical condition that poses an excessive risk to an inmate’s
health.” Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 313-14 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). Accordingly, Plaintiff must establish he suffered from an
“objectively serious medical condition” and medical officials “were aware of the serious medical
need and were deliberately indifferent to it.” King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir.
2012).
To support his claim, Plaintiff must show that his condition was “sufficiently serious or
painful to make the refusal of assistance uncivilized.” Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 916 (7th
Cir. 1996). The evidence presented, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
was insufficient to create a material issue of fact as to this element. “A prison's medical staff that
refuses to dispense bromides for the sniffles or minor aches and pains or a tiny scratch or a mild

4

headache or minor fatigue—the sorts of ailments for which many people who are not in prison
do not seek medical attention—does not by its refusal violate the Constitution.” Id. The
plaintiff’s symptoms in this case consisted of a scratch to the wrist, a minor cut to the head, and a
sore shoulder. No reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff was suffering from an objectively
serious medical condition in order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
Because the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Frazier’s recommendation to grant
defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I, the only issue remaining is Plaintiff’s
Summary Judgment Motion as to Count II. In analyzing an excessive force claim, the Supreme
Court noted that the “core judicial inquiry” is “not whether a certain quantum of injury was
sustained, but rather whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37
(2010). In this case, Plaintiff claims his injuries were punishment and in violation of his
Constitutional Rights. Conversely, the defendants have presented evidence that the force applied
was reasonable and in good faith to maintain or restore discipline. Because there is an issue of
material fact regarding whether the application of force was in good faith, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II. Accordingly, Count II is the only
remaining Count before the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court
•

ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 81) in its entirety;

•

GRANTS Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment as to Count I (Doc. 44);

•

And DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 2, 2014

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
5