Utley v. Tibbles et al
Filing
121
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 116 MOTION to Strike 111 Answer to Interrogatories filed by James K Utley, 92 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by James K Utley, 109 MOTION to outline all evidence to be used in this case filed by James K Utley, 114 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James K Utley, 93 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by James K Utley, 107 MOTION to Compel filed by James K Utley, 108 MOTION for Hearing filed by James K Utley, 115 MOTION to Strike 112 Answer to Interrogatories filed by James K Utley, 113 MOTION on Not Getting any Rulling's From the Court on Motions That Utley has put in Some Time Ago, and Not Filing's of Motions & Copy's filed by James K Utley. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 9/4/20. (ksp)
USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00226-DRL-MGG document 121 filed 09/04/20 page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMES K. UTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-226-DRL-MGG
HARRISON YANCEY et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
James K. Utley is a prisoner representing himself in this case. After screening his complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court granted him leave to proceed against Defendants Harrison Yancey,
Anthony Watson, Ryne Robinson, Arron Jonas, Lt. Dykstra, Curtis Gillespie, and Carl Tibbles in their
individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for using excessive force against him in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and state tort law; and for failing to protect him in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Utley moved for summary judgment.
Summary judgment must be granted when “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). A genuine issue of
material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To determine whether a
genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278,
282 (7th Cir. 2003).
For his Eighth Amendment claim, the “core requirement” for an excessive force claim is that
the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously
and sadistically to cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009). Several factors
USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00226-DRL-MGG document 121 filed 09/04/20 page 2 of 3
guide the inquiry of whether an officer’s use of force was legitimate or malicious, including the need
for an application of force, the amount of force used, and the extent of the injury suffered by the
prisoner. Id. A bystander officer may be held liable for the excessive force of another officer if the
bystander officer: “(1) had reason to know that a fellow officer was using excessive force or
committing a constitutional violation, and (2) had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the
act from occurring.” Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 472 (7th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, given the need
for a functional correctional facility, if an inmate refuses to obey an order, correctional staff may
compel compliance with chemical agents or physical force. Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1267 (7th
Cir. 1984).
In this case, on the current record, only the jury can decide what really happened, who was
involved, and to what extent. Both sides agree that on March 31, 2016, Mr. Utley attacked a guard
who fired him from a laundry job with broken scissors. Other guards responded, but they could not
easily subdue Mr. Utley. Only after the guards used a TASER device several times did they gain control
over him. Two guards were taken to the hospital with stab wounds, and Mr. Utley was escorted to the
medical ward. This is where the agreement ends.
Mr. Utley claims that after he was taken out of the medical ward, several defendants beat him,
and placed him in a cell naked by himself. Shortly after that, the seven defendants came to his cell,
took him out forcefully although he showed no resistance, and beat him to the point that he had
numerous cuts on his body. No one intervened to stop his beating, and he had to be taken to the
hospital with puncture wounds and lacerations to his chest, shoulders, face, and head. He points to
Carl Tibbles’s own words when asked by an investigator as to what happened: “Sorry I monkey
stomped the shit out of him.” ECF 109-2 at 1. To some extent, this account seems supported by
IDOC’s internal investigation.
2
USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00226-DRL-MGG document 121 filed 09/04/20 page 3 of 3
Defendants, on the other hand, present a much different picture. They submit facts suggesting
that Mr. Utley’s injuries resulted from the guards trying to subdue him in the laundry room after he
attacked a guard. They claim that he was removed from his cell to wash away pepper spray from his
body and that force was used only because he resisted. According to defendants, Officer Tibbles
struck him twice in the face with his elbow while Mr. Utley was in the shower, attempting to get him
to comply. They also point to where Officer Tibbles later recanted “monkey-stomping” Mr. Utley.
The representations from each side present genuine issues of material fact. Without weighing
these facts and examining the credibility of the witnesses, it is impossible to tell whether the defendants
used physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. If Mr. Utley’s account is truthful, a
reasonable jury could say they did; if defendants are to be believed, they didn’t. And that is what trials
are designed to determine. The court must deny Mr. Utley’s motion for summary judgment to permit
that trial before a jury.
In a separate matter, as the discovery deadline was approaching, Mr. Utley filed several
motions seeking leave to pose new to interrogatories to the defendants. As he put it, he wanted to
restate his questions differently and to ask some new questions in excess of the limit set by Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The court will deny these motions because Mr. Utley had ample opportunity
to conduct discovery, and many of his questions have been answered by defendants, with some of
them answering more than once.
For these reasons, the court:
(1)
DENIES Mr. Utley’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 114); and
(2)
DENIES all motions related to his request for leave to extend discovery (ECF 92, 93,
107, 108, 109, 113, 114, 115, and 116).
SO ORDERED.
September 4, 2020
s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court
3
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?