Barnes v. Christina et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 5/21/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/21/15)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JUAN BARNES
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
Civil Action No. DKC-13-3194
MARY CHRISTINA, et al.
*
Defendants
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Mary Christina Wilson and Craig Rowe1 filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment in response to the above-entitled civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff
opposes the motion. ECF Nos. 27, and 33 – 36. No hearing is deemed necessary by the court.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
Background
Plaintiff Juan Barnes (“Barnes”) was at all times relevant to this Complaint, an inmate at
the Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”). He states he was assigned to C-pod, cell
18 on December 5, 2012, when three deputies who were collecting lunch trays came to his cell.
Barnes identifies the deputies as Deputy Christina Mary (Deputy Wilson), Deputy Vincent, and
another deputy whom he could not identify. He states that Wilson approached his cell and
Barnes passed his tray through the door and turned to get the rest of the trash (milk cartons)
while holding the slot open with his right hand. Barnes claims that Wilson became angry that he
was holding the slot open and slammed the slot on his hand, crushing his hand and wrist. Barnes
screamed out in pain and he claims Deputy Vincent yelled, “what are you doing?” Barnes
1
Craig Rowe is identified as “Chief of Security” on the docket and Mary Christina Wilson, is
identified as “Christina Mary” on the docket. See ECF No. 13. The Clerk will be directed to correct the docket to
reflect the accurate names of Defendants.
asserts that Wilson called him a “fucking freak” and slammed the door even harder. Barnes
claims that he was angry and in pain, but managed to build enough strength to push the door on
the slot down with his left hand and pushed it off. Barnes states that as he did so, Wilson jumped
back and he admits stating he was “gonna get her skinny ass.” Barnes denies mentioning
Wilson’s race (Caucasian) and alleges she has a “race issue” because she included that erroneous
information in her report of the incident. ECF No. 1 at p. 2.
The two male deputies escorted Wilson off of the unit and put in a request for medical
attention for Barnes’s hand, which was swollen. Barnes asserts that he was not seen for the
injury until one week later and at that time “they” determined his hand did not require an x-ray.
Barnes claims that he was asked to “sign off” regarding the need for an x-ray and that he was
told he may have neuropathy. ECF No. 1 at p. 2.
Barnes claims that Wilson attempted to have the other two deputies “conspire with her to
make a false report.” He alleges that the two male deputies told him they were not backing up a
falsified report. He asserts that the report that was filed does not comply with the WCDC policy
requiring all officers present to write reports or the complaining officer to list them as witnesses.
He states that Wilson’s report is false. ECF No. 1 at pp. 2 – 3.
Barnes claims that the injury to his hand was done maliciously and in violation of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He further alleges that he was denied medical care for
the injury by the healthcare provider2 at WCDC which amounted to deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Additionally, Barnes asserts
that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied the right of having letters
mailed to him and was limited to having only postcards during his stay at WCDC. He claims
2
Barnes refers to the healthcare provider as “Cogned.” ECF No. 1 at p. 1. Service was never
completed on the named Defendant. For reasons stated below, the claim against this Defendant will be dismissed
without requiring service.
2
that he lost friends and his family did not want to “put business on postcards.” ECF No. 1 at pp.
3- 4. Barnes asserts that the named Defendants are responsible for the operation of WCDC. Id.
at p. 1.
Defendant Wilson summarized the incident in a report stating that “when I took the tray
of inmate Juan Barnes . . . he extended his arm out of the drop box toward my person.” ECF No.
25 at Ex. A. She further states that she “quickly tried to close the drop box door but wasn’t able
to” and that she “ordered him to get his arm back in the cell.” Id. Wilson claims that Barnes
attempted to grab her through the drop box on two additional occasions, scratching her left wrist
in the process. Id. Wilson continued to try to close the door unsuccessfully and finally shut the
door after Barnes removed his arm. Id.
The two male deputies referenced in Barnes’ complaint are identified by Defendants as
Deputies Banzhoff and Vincent. ECF Nos. 25-3 and 25-4. Banzhoff states that he was assigned
to hallway security at the time of the incident and he observed Vincent and Wilson collecting
meal trays. ECF No. 25-3. At the time of the incident involving Barnes, Banzhoff was at cell C9 collecting a bag meal and heard a commotion coming from cell C-10. Id. He states that when
he looked over “Wilson appeared to have . . . Barnes . . . hand stuck between the drop box.” Id.
He states that Wilson “continued to put pressure on the drop box but Barnes could not move his
hand.” Id. Banzhoff further states that when Wilson let the drop box go, Barnes “reached his
arm out of the drop box twice appearing to try and grab Deputy Wilson.” Id. Banzhoff claims
that once Barnes’ hand was back inside the cell and Wilson was able to secure the drop box,
Barnes looked at Wilson and said, “Bitch I will fuck your skinny ass when I get out.” Banzhoff
then exited the tier along with Vincent and Wilson. Id.
3
Vincent reported that Wilson unlocked the box, took the tray from Barnes, and Barnes
kept his hand in the drop box. Id. at Ex. D. Vincent states that Wilson began closing the box
with Barnes’ hand still inside it. He states that “Wilson continued to push on the drop box door,
with Inmate Barnes hand in there, ordering him to remove his hand.” Id. Vincent adds that
Wilson “started using both hands to push on the drop box door” and he asked Barnes what he
was doing. Id. In response to Vincent’s question, Barnes replied “[t]hat bitch closed my hand in
the drop box!” Id. Wilson then “let go of the drop box” and Barnes “reached through the open
box and swiped at Deputy Wilson.” Id. Vincent then ordered Barnes to put his arm back in and
Barnes complied. Id. Vincent claims that Barnes remarked to Wilson, after the door was closed,
that he was “going to fuck your skinny ass up when I get out of here.” Id. When Vincent asked
Wilson what happened, Wilson stated, “he tried to grab me through the drop box.” Id.
Defendants submit a video recording of the incident taken from a surveillance camera.
ECF No. 25 at Ex. F. The video does not include audio and depicts the backs of the deputies
involved as they are standing in front of Barnes’ cell door. Due to the perspective of the camera
angle, it cannot be determined whether Barnes reached through the slot before his hand was shut
in the door as Wilson claims. It is clear, however, that Barnes “swiped” at Wilson twice and
Barnes admits he did so after Wilson shut his hand in the door. ECF No. 36 at p. 1.
Standard of Review
Summary Judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) which provides that:
The 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.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will
defeat the motion:
4
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).
“The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club,
Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
The court should “view the evidence in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmovant, and draw
all inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness= credibility.”
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The court
must, however, also abide by the “affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually
unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.” Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993), and
citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
Analysis
Excessive Force
The constitutional protections afforded a pre-trial detainee as provided by the Fourteenth
Amendment are co-extensive with those provided by the Eighth Amendment.
See Bell v.
Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). “Due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great
as the eighth amendment protections available to the convicted prisoner.” Hill v. Nicodemus,
979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir. 1992), citing Martin v. Gentile, 849 F. 2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988);
see also Riley v. Dorton, 115 F. 3d 1159, 1167 (4th Cir. 1997) (pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth
5
Amendment right with respect to excessive force is similar to prisoner’s Eighth Amendment
right, both require more than de minimus injury).
Whether force used by prison officials was excessive is determined by inquiring if “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, 6-7 (1992). This court must look
at the need for application of force; the relationship between that need and the amount of force
applied; the extent of the injury inflicted; the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates
as reasonably perceived by prison officials; and any efforts made to temper the severity of the
response. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S. 312, 321 (1986). The absence of significant injury alone
is not dispositive of a claim of excessive force. Wilkens v. Gaddy, 599 U.S. 34 (2010). The
extent of injury incurred is one factor indicative of whether or not the force used was necessary
in a particular situation, but if force is applied maliciously and sadistically liability is not avoided
simply because the prisoner had the good fortune to escape serious harm. Id. at 34.
In the instant case there are genuine disputes of material fact prohibiting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Wilson. Wilson’s statement regarding the incident indicates that
Barnes extended his arm out of the slot toward her person as an explanation as to why she closed
the door on his hand. The statements provided by Banzhoff and Vincent do not support Wilson’s
assertion; rather, their observation was that Wilson closed Barnes’ hand in the door, opened it,
and then Barnes swiped at her twice. ECF Nos. 25-3 and 25-4. Additionally, the video
surveillance does not depict Barnes swiping at Wilson three times as she states, but twice as
stated by Banzhoff and Vincent. ECF No. 25 at Ex. F. What cannot be determined by the
evidence submitted is Wilson’s state of mind when the door was shut on Barnes’ hand. The
parties dispute whether Barnes’ hand was shut in the door maliciously to cause harm or in
6
response to a breach of security by Barnes. Resolution of that dispute requires a credibility
determination that may not be reached on summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255
(ACredibility determinations . . . are jury functions, not those of a judge.@).
Barnes states in his opposition response that Wilson’s allegation that he scratched her
wrist when he swiped at her through the door is belied by the evidence. ECF No. 34 at p. 4.
Specifically, Wilson is wearing rubber gloves that cover her wrists during the incident, making
her claim she was assaulted less credible. See ECF No. 25-5 at p. 5. Barnes also states that
WCDC regulations require photographs to be taken of injuries during an incident involving use
of force, but none were taken of Wilson or Barnes. ECF No. 34 at pp. 6 – 7. That failure
remains unexplained by Defendants. Thus, the Motion for Summary Judgment as it pertains to
Defendant Mary Christina Wilson shall be denied.
Defendant Craig Rowe was the Chief of Security at WCDC at the time of the incident
involving Wilson and Barnes and is currently the Warden of WCDC.3 ECF No. 13 at p. 3.
Barnes’ allegation against the Chief of Security and the Warden is that they were “legally
responsible for the operation of WCDC.” ECF No. 1 at p. 1. Barnes does not elaborate on his
claim as to how Rowe or his predecessor as Warden violated his constitutional rights; rather his
claim appears to be one based on respondeat superior.
It is well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983
claims. See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004) (no respondeat superior
liability under § 1983). Liability of supervisory officials “is not based on ordinary principles of
respondeat superior, but rather is premised on ‘a recognition that supervisory indifference or tacit
authorization of subordinates’ misconduct may be a causative factor in the constitutional injuries
3
Rowe answered the Complaint “for his predecessor, Major Van Evans, who has since retired.”
ECF No. 13 at p. 3.
7
they inflict on those committed to their care.’” Baynard v. Malone, 268 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir.
2001) citing Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir. 1984). Supervisory liability under §
1983 must be supported with evidence that: (1) the supervisor had actual or constructive
knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable
risk of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) the supervisor’s response to the
knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the
alleged offensive practices; and (3) there was an affirmative causal link between the supervisor’s
inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff. See Shaw v. Stroud, 13
F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994).
In the instant case there is no evidence that Wilson was engaged in conduct which her
supervisor should have known about, but failed to stop. The incident at issue was instantaneous
and does not appear to fall within the category of constitutionally offensive practices. Further,
Barnes has failed to delineate a specific claim as to Rowe or his predecessor, entitling Rowe to
summary judgment in his favor.
Medical Care
Barnes’ claim regarding the failure to provide medical care for the injury to his hand does
not state a claim as to the Defendants served. In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim for
denial of medical care, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the actions of the defendants or their
failure to act amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires
proof that, objectively, the prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need and that,
subjectively, the prison staff were aware of the need for medical attention but failed to either
provide it or ensure the needed care was available. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
8
(1994). Objectively, the medical condition at issue must be serious. See Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (there is no expectation that prisoners will be provided with unqualified
access to health care). Proof of an objectively serious medical condition, however, does not end
the inquiry.
The subjective component requires “subjective recklessness” in the face of the serious
medical condition. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839B 40. “True subjective recklessness requires
knowledge both of the general risk, and also that the conduct is inappropriate in light of that
risk.” Rich v. Bruce, 129 F. 3d 336, 340 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1997). “Actual knowledge or awareness
on the part of the alleged inflicter . . . becomes essential to proof of deliberate indifference
‘because prison officials who lacked knowledge of a risk cannot be said to have inflicted
punishment.’” Brice v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, 58 F. 3d 101, 105 (4th Cir. 1995)
quoting Farmer 511 U.S. at 844. If the requisite subjective knowledge is established, an official
may avoid liability “if [he] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm was not ultimately
averted.” See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. Reasonableness of the actions taken must be judged in
light of the risk the defendant actually knew at the time. See Brown v. Harris, 240 F. 3d 383,
390 (4th Cir. 2000); citing Liebe v. Norton, 157 F. 3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 1998) (focus must be on
precautions actually taken in light of suicide risk, not those that could have been taken).
Assuming, without deciding, that the injury to Barnes’ hand qualifies as a serious medical
need, there is no evidence that Wilson or Rowe were aware of it and either prevented or
interfered with the provision of needed medical care. “Section 1983 liability on the part of the
supervisory defendants requires a showing that: (1) the supervisory defendants failed promptly
to provide an inmate with needed medical care, (2) that the supervisory defendants deliberately
interfered with the prison doctors’ performance, or (3) that the supervisory defendants tacitly
9
authorized or were indifferent to the prison physicians’ constitutional violations.” Miltier v.
Beorn, 896 F. 2d 848, 854 (4th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted); see also Slakan v. Porter,
737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir.1984) (supervisory liability for an inmate’s beating by prison guards).
The claim regarding medical care as it relates to Wilson and Rowe must be dismissed.
Barnes also named “Cogned Health” as a Defendant, but service on that Defendant was
not obtained as the Washington County Attorney did not accept service on behalf of that
Defendant. ECF Nos. 9 and 10. The claim stated against the health care provider is that there
was a one-week delay in sending anyone to Barnes’ cell to examine his hand. ECF No. 1 at p. 3.
When Barnes’ hand was examined, he states the unnamed medical staff “declined to take me to
doctor neurologist [to] have [it] x-ray[ed].” Id. Barnes concludes that this “could amount to
deliberate indifference.” Id. His claim fails inasmuch as it amounts to a difference of opinion
regarding appropriate treatment. There is no Eighth Amendment violation where diagnostic tests
are declined based on medical assessments of the patient. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
849 (4th Cir.1985) (disagreement with medical opinion is not deliberate indifference). Thus, the
claim as to Defendant Cogned Health shall be dismissed without requiring service.
Mail Claim
Defendants Wilson and Rowe assert entitlement to summary judgment on Barnes’ claim
that his First Amendment rights were violated when his mail was restricted to postcards. ECF
No. 25, p. 7, n. ii. Barnes does not oppose dismissal of that claim in his Opposition Response.
Even if he did, however, Barnes fails to state a constitutionally valid claim. His assertion that he
lost friends and that his family was reluctant to contact him because of the postcard only policy
fails to implicate a constitutionally protected interest.
10
Prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989).
In considering whether policies regarding mail are
constitutionally valid, a distinction is drawn between incoming and outgoing mail; a lower level
of scrutiny applies to policies regarding incoming mail. Id. at 413. Prohibition of incoming
materials from publishers (see Thornburgh at 408) requires the showing of a greater, legitimate
security interest than policies concerning other types of mail. See Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F. 3d
540, 548 (4th Cir. 1999) (inspection of outgoing mail serves legitimate penological purpose).
Likewise, policies concerning legal mail require heightened scrutiny, but isolated incidents of
mishandling of mail do not state a claim. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.
1990) (requiring a showing of improper motive or interference with access to courts); Buie v.
Jones 717 F. 2d 925, 926 (4th Cir. 1983) (isolated incident of mishandling does not show
actionable pattern or practice).
Where, as here, the postcard only policy does not foreclose all avenues of communication
available to Barnes and his family; his stay in the facility was transitional and temporary; and the
challenged policy does not impact upon his ability to communicate with legal counsel regarding
his criminal case, deference to the detention center’s security concern is warranted. See Covell v.
Arpaio, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1153 (D. Ariz. 2009) (no constitutional violation where postcard
policy bears a rational connection to legitimate governmental interest to prevent or limit
smuggling of contraband and alternative means of exercising right at issue were available to
prisoners). Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to dismissal of this claim.
A separate Order follows.
May 21, 2015
__________/s/__________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
Date
11
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?