Hall v. Pruitt et al

Filing 41

ORDER that Defts' 32 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Pltf's claims against Defts in their official capacities and is DENIED with respect to the Pltf's other claims. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/22/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00044-MR
ADAM WADE HALL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU PRUITT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 32].
I.

BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff Adam Wade Hall (the “Plaintiff”),

proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the
violation of his civil rights while he was incarcerated at the Marion
Correctional Institute in Marion, North Carolina. [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff’s
Complaint asserted claims against Teresa Pruitt, Robert Kalinowski, and
George Bright, (the “Defendants”) who all are officers at the Marion
Correctional Institute. [Id.].

Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 1 of 9

On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

[Doc. 8].

The Plaintiff was given the

opportunity to file an Amended Complaint within 14 days. [Id.].
On May 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the
Defendants. [Doc. 9]. In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff brings claims
against the Defendants for allegedly using excessive force on him on
January 4, 2018. [Id. at 3]. The Plaintiff’s allegations are nonspecific, but he
asserts that the Defendants handcuffed him before striking him with a baton,
hitting him with closed fists, and spraying him with pepper spray. [Id. at 4].
For relief, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint seeks $3,000, the return of his
prayer rug, and either transfer from the Marion Correctional Institute or for
“no inmate be in cell with officer.” [Id. at 5].
On November 7, 2018, the Court conducted a frivolity review of the
Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and determined that it
presented cognizable claims against the Defendants for excessive force and
failure to intervene. [Doc. 11 at 14]. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s other
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). [Id.].
On December 22, 2018, the Defendants filed an Answer to the
Amended Complaint. [Doc. 23]. On October 3, 2019, the Defendants filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 32]. The Defendants argue that
2
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 2 of 9

summary judgment should be granted because they have sovereign and
qualified immunity against the Plaintiff’s claims and the record shows that
they did not use excessive force against the Plaintiff. [Doc. 33 at 1]. On
October 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. 40]. The time for the Defendants to file a reply
has passed.1
Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is
genuine “if 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). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under
governing law. Id.
The movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the district court
of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine

1

On April 22, 2020, this matter was reassigned to the undersigned.
3
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 3 of 9

issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(internal citations omitted).
Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
party. The nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3. The nonmoving party may not
rely upon mere allegations or denials of allegations in his pleadings to defeat
a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 324. Rather, the nonmoving party
must oppose a proper summary judgment motion with citation to
“depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations …, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials” in the record. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). The nonmoving
party must present sufficient evidence from which “a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; accord
Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert County, Md., 48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th Cir. 1995).
When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the
evidence and any inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. “‘Where the record taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving
party, there is no genuine issue for trial.’” Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct.

4
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 4 of 9

2658, 2677 (2009) (quoting Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986)).
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Sovereign Immunity

A suit against a state official in his official capacity is construed as
against the state itself. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,
71 (1989). It is well settled that neither a state nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.;
see Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978). Moreover,
the Eleventh Amendment generally bars lawsuits by citizens against nonconsenting states brought either in state or federal courts. See Alden v.
Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996).
Although Congress may abrogate the states' sovereign immunity, it
has not chosen to do so for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Quern v.
Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 343 (1979). Likewise, North Carolina has not waived
its sovereign immunity by consenting to be sued in federal court for claims
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See generally Mary's House, Inc. v. North
Carolina, 976 F. Supp. 2d 691, 697 (M.D.N.C. 2013) (claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 barred by sovereign immunity of North Carolina). As such, the
5
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 5 of 9

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims
against them in their official capacities and the Court will grant the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on those claims.
B.

Excessive Force and Failure to Intervene

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from unnecessarily
and wantonly inflicting pain on prisoners. Hill v. Crum, 727 F.3d 312, 317
(4th Cir. 2013). “An inmate’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
involves both an objective and a subjective component.” Brooks v. Johnson,
924 F.3d 104, 112 (4th Cir. 2019). “The objective component asks whether
the force applied was sufficiently serious to establish a cause of action.” Id.
The subjective component “ultimately turns on whether force was applied in
a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Id. at 112-13. The test
for evaluating whether officers acted maliciously or wantonly considers (1)
the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between the need
and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of any reasonably
perceived threat that the application of force was intended to quell; and (4)
any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Thompson
v. Virginia, 878 F.3d 89, 99 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Here, the parties dispute the circumstances surrounding the use of
6
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 6 of 9

force, the need for the use of force, the amount of force that the Defendants
used on the Plaintiff, and whether the amount of force was reasonable under
the circumstances. These questions are genuine disputes of material fact
and must be determined by a jury. As such, the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to intervene
claims against them in their individual capacities will be denied.
C.

Qualified Immunity
“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional

violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably
believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531
(4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). “To determine whether an officer is entitled to
qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has
demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether
that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” E.W.
ex rel. T.W. v. Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

The doctrine of qualified immunity “gives government

officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments and
protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the
law.” Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
7
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 7 of 9

The Defendants argues that they should be granted qualified immunity
because they did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.
However, the reasonableness of Defendants’ use of force is a jury question
that precludes the Court from determining whether the Defendants violated
the Plaintiff’s clearly established rights at this time. As such, the Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity will be denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment will be granted in part and denied in part. The Motion will be
granted with respect to the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants in their
official capacities and will be denied with regard to the Plaintiff’s other claims.
This case will proceed to trial.2
In light of the current circumstances, the Court does not anticipate
being able to set this matter for trial until 2021 at the earliest. To facilitate a
resolution of this case before that time, the parties may request a judicial
settlement conference before the Magistrate Judge. See LCvR 16.3(d)(2).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for

2

The Plaintiff will proceed to trial pro se. [See Misc. Case No. 3:19-mc-00013-MR Doc.
4: Order of Suspension of Prisoner Assistance Program].
8
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 8 of 9

Summary Judgment [Doc. 32] is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiff’s
claims against the Defendants in their official capacities and is DENIED with
respect to the Plaintiff’s other claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 22, 2020

9
Case 1:18-cv-00044-MR Document 41 Filed 07/22/20 Page 9 of 9