Reynolds v. Russell et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Ronald Helmss and James Rodgerss Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is DENIED. 45 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/11/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH DA’VON REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRY RUSSELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-00149-JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Ronald Helms’s and James Rodgers’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on February 23, 2017. (ECF No. 45.) The Motion has
been fully briefed and is ready for disposition.
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff Kenneth Reynolds filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
seeking monetary and injunctive relief. In his amended complaint, he asserts excessive-force
claims against Defendants Helms and Rodgers based upon the following allegations.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) in Bonne Terre, Missouri, where Helms and Rodgers were
employed as correctional officers. On November 4, 2014, Helms and Rodgers approached
Reynolds while he was in his cell and directed him to report to the “Sally Port.” Reynolds
complied, and upon entering the Sally Port, Helms told Plaintiff to “cuff up.”

Plaintiff

questioned Helms as to why he was being handcuffed. Helms refused to answer and proceeded
to place restraints on Plaintiff’s right wrist. Plaintiff then questioned Rodgers as to why he was
being handcuffed, at which time Helms slammed Plaintiff’s head into a concrete wall, leaving
1

Plaintiff with a split lip, a knot on the left side of his head, and a gash on his forehead. Plaintiff
was subsequently taken to the ground, held down, and punched repeatedly. He was escorted to
the medical unit shortly thereafter. Plaintiff was later issued conduct violations in connection
with the incident, and he filed internal grievances regarding the use of force against him. (ECF
No. 9.)
The summary judgment record reflects the following. During his deposition, Plaintiff
testified that he had been in his cell when Helms and Rodgers approached him and told him to
report to the Sally Port, and that once he entered the Sally Port Helms told him to submit to
restraints. Upon questioning Helms as to why he was being restrained, Helms responded that he
had been out of his cell in violation of ERDCC policy. He then turned to and directed the same
questions to Rodgers, at which time Helms slammed him against the wall, causing his head to hit
the wall. With respect to Defendants’ use of force, Plaintiff further stated, in pertinent part:
[A]fter he aggressively slammed my head—well, hit my head on the sally port, I
kind of stiffen up, because I didn’t know what was going on…
So they took me to the ground. And in the process of me going to the ground, I
was getting hit…
And I stood back up. And in the process of me standing back up, well, I guess
Ro[d]gers, he was calling for the white shirt or was calling a 10-5, that’s what
they call it…for staff assault. And he kind of retreated. And me and Helms, I
was getting off the ground—I was getting off of them and Helms hit me with an
uppercut while holding my hair…
[A]fter he punched me twice, Ro[d]gers came and assisted to try to put me in
handcuffs. But I’m—he got my right arm—Ro[d]gers has my right arm
now…And by this time, both of them grabbed me to try to get me back on the
ground…And my arm—they put me in handcuffs and my arm was getting
twisted. I had a knee in the back of my neck. I was getting punched in my ribs. I
got punched in my face…
I wasn’t resisting no more because I was already in handcuffs…
(Def Ex. A, ECF No. 47.1 at 23-37.)
2

Reynolds’s ERDCC medical records indicate that he refused assessment, and that he did
not appear to have any injuries. (Def. Ex. J.) ERDCC records also show that Reynolds was
issued two conduct violations in connection with the incident. The first Conduct Violation
Report was issued by Rodgers and stated that Reynolds had refused to comply with directives to
return to his cell. (Def. Ex. D.) The second Conduct Violation Report was issued by Helms and
provided the following recitation of events:
On the above date and approximate time Offender Reynolds…was directed to the
A/B sallyport. Once in the sallyport I gave Offender Reynolds several directives
to submit to wrist restraints. Offender Reynolds complied by allowing me to
place restraint on his right wrist…[A]t this point the offender pushed away from
the wall, I then assisted Offender Reynolds back to the wall. At this time
Offender Reynolds spun around striking me on the right side of my face with his
elbow. Offender Reynolds was then assisted to the ground, once on the ground
Offender Reynolds bit my right thumb. A 10/5 was announced and additional
staff responded to assist…I received injuries for which I sought medical
attention…
(Def. Ex. G, ECF No. 47.8 at 1.)
According to the sworn affidavits of Helms and Rodgers, Reynolds, prior to being taken
to the Sally Port, was out of his cell in violation of ERDCC policy and had refused directives to
return to his cell. (Def. Exs. B-C.) In addition, Rodgers attested that during the incident in
question Reynolds elbowed Helms in the head and got a hold of Rodgers’s pepper spray. (Def.
Ex. C.)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be
granted 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.” In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a court is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must

3

give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record. See
Hott v. Hennepin Cnty., Minn., 260 F.3d 901, 904-05 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
The moving party bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). When a summary
judgment motion is properly supported by evidence, the burden then shifts to the non-moving
party who must set forth affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See
id. at 256-57. The non-moving party may not rest on the allegations in his pleadings, but must
set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); Stone Motor Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 293 F.3d 456, 465 (8th Cir. 2002). Self-serving,
conclusory statements without support are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. See
Armour & Co., Inc. v. Inver Grove Heights, 2 F.3d 276, 279 (8th Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION
The “core judicial inquiry” in a suit for excessive use of force is “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) (per curiam) (citation and quotations
omitted). “Factors to be considered in deciding whether a particular use of force was reasonable
are whether there was an objective need for force, the relationship between any such need and
the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the correctional officers, any efforts
by the officers to temper the severity of their forceful response, and the extent of the inmate’s
injury.” Treats v. Morgan, 308 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). In considering an excessive-force claim, the Court is to weigh the prisoner’s
testimony, the extent of the prisoner’s injury, and whether the “security threat reasonably
perceived by defendants, ‘[would] support a reliable inference’ of an unnecessary and wanton

4

infliction of pain.” Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Johnson v. BiState Justice Ctr./Ark. Dep’t Corr., 12 F.3d 133, 136-37 (8th Cir. 1993)). In weighing these
factors, however, the Court is required to “avoid[ ] the improper resolution of credibility issues.”
Id.
Defendants argue that summary judgment is warranted because Reynolds “admits that
Defendants used the amount of force that was necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s resistance,” and
because Reynolds “has not put forth any evidence that Defendants used excessive force against
him in contravention of prison policies.” (ECF No. 46 at 2.) Defendants also argue that they are
entitled to qualified immunity. Id.
Based upon the record before it, the Court concludes that genuine issues of material fact
exist surrounding whether Defendants’ use of force against Reynolds was applied in a good-faith
effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Contrary
to Defendants assertions that Reynolds admits that Defendants used the amount of force that was
necessary to respond to his resistance, Reynolds’s deposition testimony indicates that he
complied with directives and was submitting to restraints at the time Helms slammed him against
the wall, and that Defendants continued to hit him after he was taken to the ground, placed in
handcuffs, and no longer resisting. In addition, although Defendants maintain that Reynolds was
taken to the Sally Port because he was out of his cell in violation of ERDCC Policy, Reynolds
testified that he had been in his cell when Defendants’ approached him. Furthermore, although
ERDCC medical records indicate that Reynolds did not sustain any injuries, Reynolds testified
that he sustained a split lip, a knot on the left side of his head, and a gash on his forehead.1 Thus,

1

The Court notes Defendants’ argument that the photographs of Plaintiff’s injuries demonstrate
that he sustained minimal to no injuries. (Def. Ex. H.) However, the photographs submitted by
Defendants, which are purportedly copies of the originals, are indiscernible due to their poor
5

the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiff’s compliance with
Defendants’ directives, the extent of force used by Defendants, and the degree of Plaintiff’s
injuries. See Bell v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 346, 347 (8th Cir. 2011) (courts should
neither weigh evidence nor make credibility determinations when ruling on motion for summary
judgment).
As to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity
protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quotation and citation omitted).
As discussed above, there is affirmative evidence in the record that raises genuine issues of
material fact regarding Defendants’ use of force against Reynolds. In addition, the law is wellestablished that a malicious and sadistic use of force by a prison official against a prisoner, done
with the intent to injure and causing actual injury, is enough to establish a violation of the Eighth
Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. See Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37; Whitley v.
Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006)
(“The Eighth Amendment bars correctional officers from imposing unnecessary and wanton
paint on inmates…”).

Defendants are therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the

grounds of qualified immunity.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

quality; thus, the Court cannot determine the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, or lack thereof, based
upon the photographs.
6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Ronald Helms’s and James Rodgers’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is DENIED.

Dated this _11th__ day of May, 2017.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

7