Knight v. Edelman et al

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Ordered by Judge Karen E. Schreier. (Schreier, Karen)

Download PDF
U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D I S T R I C T OF NEBRASKA T Y R E L L KNIGHT, Plaintiff, vs. R A Y M O N D EDELMAN, sued in both h i s individual and official c a p a c i tie s ; U N K N O W N NOORDHOCK, C o r p o r a l , sued in both his in d i v id u a l and official capacities; C A L V I N HAYWOOD, sued in both h i s individual and official c a p a c it ie s ; and U N K N O W N PIPER, Sergeant, sued in both his individual and official ca p a citie s, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4 :0 6 C V 3 0 6 5 M E M O R A N D U M OPINION A N D ORDER P l a i n t i ff , Tyrell Knight, filed a 1983 claim against defendants, in both t h e i r individual and official capacities, alleging that they used unnecessary f o r c e on him, resulting in corporal, cruel, and unusual punishment in v io la t io n of the Eighth Amendment. More specifically, Knight alleged that d e f e n d a n t s yanked hard on the come-along chain (come-along) 1 causing him t o fall to the ground, flipped him over on his stomach, attempted to suffocate A come-along is a set of handcuffs connected to a chain, which is a p p r o x i m a t e l y five feet long. There are two rings hooked to the chain, one chain is about 18 inches from the handcuffs and one chain is about 5 inches from the h a n d c u f fs . The purpose of a come-along is to control an inmate's movements. 1 h im , and slammed his head against the cement floor. Defendants deny t h e s e allegations. The one-day court trial commenced on Tuesday, M a r c h 28, 2009, in Omaha, Nebraska. 2 Knight and his attorney, Jeremy J o r g e n s o n , were present at the trial. Linda Willard and Amie Larson from t h e Nebraska Attorney General's Office were also present during the one-day c o u r t trial. Knight, Caseworker Raymond Edelman, Sergeant Troy Piper, C o r p o r a l Brandon Noordhoek, and Randy Crosby testified during the trial. FINDINGS OF FACTS The court finds the following facts have been proven by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence: T h is case arises out of an incident that occurred in February 2006, at t h e Nebraska State Penitentiary (NSP). At that time, Knight was an inmate w it h in the custody and control of the Nebraska Department of Correctional S e r v i ce s (NDCS) and was incarcerated in the Control Unit, a higher security u n it , at the NSP. Defendant Edelman was a caseworker for NDCS at the N S P ; defendant Noordhoek was a corporal for NDCS at the NSP; defendant P i p e r was a sergeant for NDCS at the NSP; and defendant Calvin Haywood w a s a case manager for NDCS at the NSP. Over two years after filing his complaint, Knight filed a motion r e q u e s t in g a jury trial. The court found that Knight's demand for a jury trial w a s over one year past the time limit for demanding a jury trial and, as a result, d e n i e d Knight's demand for a jury trial. 2 2 O n February 23, 2006, Knight was out of his cell for a routine shower. After Knight completed his shower, Sergeant Piper and Corporal Noordhoek a t t e m p t e d to handcuff Knight so they could take Knight back to his cell. Knight refused to come to the gate to be restrained, was uncooperative, and b e g a n arguing with Sergeant Piper. Knight was telling Sergeant Piper and C o r p o r a l Noordhoek about the cyst on his face and asked them for clean sheets. A t the time, Edelman was running the lever control box. Haywood a r r iv e d at the lever control box and Edelman, on his own initiative, retrieved a come-along and approached Sergeant Piper, Corporal Noordhoek, and K n ig h t . When Edelman stepped toward Knight with the come-along, Knight v o lu n ta r ily stepped forward and was handcuffed by Sergeant Piper. Sergeant P i p e r also secured the come-along. Corporal Noordhoek put leg irons on K n ig h t . Subsequently, Haywood opened the gallery gate, which allowed the s t a f f members to escort Knight back to his cell. Knight was cooperative d u r i n g this process. Sergeant Piper, Corporal Noordhoek, and Edelman started to escort K n i g h t back to his cell.3 During the escort down the gallery, Knight had on l e g irons, handcuffs, and a come-along that was attached to the handcuffs. A normal escort requires two staff. But if an inmate is difficult, the e s c o r t usually requires three staff. 3 3 W h ile escorting Knight, Edelman was on Knight's left side. Sergeant Piper w a s right behind Edelman on the left side of Knight. Corporal Noordhoek w a s on the right side of Knight and to the right of Sergeant Piper. A s they were walking down the gallery, Knight started walking slowly a n d Edelman told Knight that he needed to continue walking. At some point d u r i n g the escort to his cell, Knight planted his feet and raised his arms, w h i c h pulled the come-along and caused one of the come-along chains to fall o u t of Edelman's hands. Responding to this situation, Sergeant Piper and C o r p o r a l Noordhoek immediately took Knight to the wall and to the floor. To a c c o m p lis h this take down, Sergeant Piper took Knight's upper left arm and C o r p o r a l Noordhoek took Knight's upper right arm. Knight resisted the take d ow n . O n c e on the ground, Corporal Noordhoek was in charge of securing K n i g h t 's right arm and Edelman was in charge of securing Knight's left arm. While Knight was secured on the ground, Edelman held Knight's jump suit 4 b e t w e e n himself and Knight because he thought Knight was going to spit. Edelman, Corporal Noordhoek, and Sergeant Piper kept Knight secured to t h e floor until the emergency response team arrived. When the emergency r e s p o n s e team arrived, Edelman and Sergeant Piper assisted in handcuffing During the escort, Knight was carrying his jump suit because he had just co m p le ted his routine shower. 4 4 K n ig h t 's hands behind his back. After they got the handcuffs situated, the e v e n t s were videotaped and Corporal Noordhoek and Sergeant Sully escorted K n i g h t to the bull pen area to be checked by medical personnel. Knight was in a state of paranoia and was dizzy. Knight had a scar on his eyebrow and a s c a r on his knee. Additionally, the incident has caused him to have n i g h t m a r e s at night and to wake up in the middle of the night sweating. After the medical personnel checked Knight, Corporal Noordhoek assisted in t a k i n g Knight back to his cell. D IS C U S S IO N T h e Eighth Amendment protects inmates from the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain by correctional officers, regardless of whether an in m a te suffers serious injury as a result. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 , 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992). Officers do not violate the E ig h t h Amendment when they use force reasonably "in a good-faith effort to m a in t a in or restore discipline." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S. Ct. at 999. In e x ce s s iv e force cases, it must be "determine[d] whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously or s a d is t ic a lly to cause harm." Estate of Davis by Ostenfeld v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1 3 8 8 , 1394 (8 th Cir. 1997). See also Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 449 (8 th C ir . 2008). "Whether a situation justifies the use of force to maintain or r e s t o r e discipline is a fact specific issue that turns on the circumstances of 5 t h e individual case or the particular prison setting." Johnson v. Blaukat, 4 5 3 F.3d 1108, 1113 (8 th Cir. 2006). Factors for consideration in deciding w h e t h e r a particular use of force was reasonable are whether there was an o b je c t iv e need for force, the relationship between any such need and the a m o u n t of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the correctional o ffic e r s , any efforts by the officers to temper the severity of their forceful r e s p o n s e , and the extent of the inmate's injury. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 1 1 2 S. Ct. at 999. I. D e fe n d a n t s Sergeant Piper, Corporal Noordhoek, and Haywood D u r in g the trial, after Knight finished presenting his evidence, d e fe n d a n ts moved to dismiss the action against them. The court ordered ju d g m e n t in favor of defendants Sergeant Piper, Corporal Noordhoek, and Haywood. With regards to Sergeant Piper and Corporal Noordhoek, Knight t e s t i fie d that when they took him down, they were doing their job. In fact, K n i g h t commended them on doing an excellent job in relation to the take d o w n . With regards to Haywood, Knight claimed that Haywood should have c o m e down and helped him when the other staff were forceful with him. But K n ig h t testified that Haywood was running the gates and had to stay at the g a t e operator station. As such, Haywood was not able to assist Knight and K n i g h t was aware of this. Accordingly, the court granted judgment in favor o f these defendants after Knight rested his case because even when viewing 6 t h e evidence in the light most favorable to Knight, Knight had not submitted a n y evidence to show liability on the part of these three defendants. II. D e f e n d a n t Edelman T h e only remaining issue before the court is whether Edelman used e x c e s s iv e force when escorting Knight back to his cell, resulting in Knight's i n j u r i e s . Based on the court's factual findings, Edelman did not engage in e x c e s s iv e force with regard to Knight. Instead, Knight planted his feet and lift e d his arms, which caused one of the come-along chains to fall from Edelman's hand. After Sergeant Piper and Corporal Noordhoek took down K n i g h t , Edelman assisted in restraining Knight to the ground and held K n ig h t 's jump suit between himself and Knight while they waited for the e m e r g e n c y response team to arrive. As such, the facts of this case do not s u p p o r t a finding that Edelman's behavior rose to the level of excessive force. E v e n if Edelman pulled Knight with the come-along during the escort, t r ie d to put Knight's jump suit into his mouth, and hit Knight's head against t h e floor, as Knight alleges, the court finds that Edelman did not use e x c e s s i v e force. Rather, Edelman engaged in a good faith effort to maintain d is c ip lin e by escorting Knight back to his cell in an orderly fashion, keeping K n ig h t secure, and preventing Knight from engaging in inappropriate b e h a v i o r towards staff. 7 W h i le maintaining discipline, Edelman used a reasonable amount of fo r c e . First, there was an objective need for force because Knight began w a l k i n g slowly and refused to keep a normal pace. As Knight slowed down, Edelman instructed Knight to walk faster but Knight refused. In order for E d e l m a n to properly escort Knight to his cell, Knight needed to keep a n o r m a l pace but Knight refused to do so. After Knight was taken down, it w a s necessary for Edelman to keep Knight secure and to prevent him from s p it t in g on staff. Second, the relationship between the need for force and the a m o u n t of force used was proportionate. The need for force was minimal, a n d Edelman used a minimal amount of force. Third, Edelman reasonably p e r c e iv e d Knight's behavior as a threat. Knight, who was secured in the C o n t r o l Unit, a higher security unit, had past behavioral issues and had b e e n acting out prior to the escort. Further, Knight was not following the d i r e c t io n s of Edelman. Fourth, Edelman attempted to alleviate the need to u s e force by ordering Knight to walk at a normal pace. But such efforts were u n s u c c e s s f u l . Fifth and finally, Knight's injuries were not extremely serious. While Knight does have a scar on his eyebrow and knee and continues to h a v e nightmares about the incident, such injuries did not require extensive m e d ic a l treatment. At trial, Knight was able to stand, sit and walk without p a i n and was mentally capable of testifying about the alleged incident. Accordingly, the court finds that even if Edelman pulled Knight with the 8 c o m e - a lo n g , tried to put a jump suit into Knight's mouth, and hit Knight's h e a d against the ground, Edelman did not engage in excessive force. A c c o r d i n g ly , it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendants Sergeant P ip e r , Corporal Noordhoek, Haywood, and Edelman. D a t e d July 28, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen E. Schreier K A R E N E. SCHREIER U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

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?