Benton v. Cliffton et al

Filing 7

ORDER that Plaintiff's Complaint survives initial review. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a summons forms to fill out so that service may be made on Defendants. Once the Court receives the summons forms, the U.S. Marshal shall effectuate service on Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/29/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nvc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:17-cv-97-FDW
CORNELIUS DELANE BENTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU CLIFFTON,
)
FNU STREETS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff has been granted in
forma pauperis status. (Doc. No. 5).
I.

BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Cornelius Delane Benton, a North Carolina inmate incarcerated at
Alexander Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina, filed this action on June 8,
2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has named the following two persons as
Defendants, both identified as correctional officers at Alexander at all relevant times: (1) FNU
Cliffton and (2) FNU Streets. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used excessive force against
Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights on March 12, 2017.1 Plaintiff alleges the
following facts to support his claim:

1

Plaintiff cites the Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, Second, Sixth, and Ninth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution in his Complaint. See (Doc. No. 1 at 5). A convicted prisoner’s claim for use of
excessive force is properly brought under the Eighth Amendment. This Court will assume that
Plaintiff is intending to bring such claim here.
1

On 3-12-17 while at work in kitchen, some trays drop on the floor by other
workers. At this time, officer Sruggs came in the kitchen. Ask the window
worker why the trays drop he stated they slipped out his hand. On[ce] Officer
Sruggs out of the kitchen he turns to Plaintiff stop and stated you need to get in
the hallway. Few seconds Lt. Cliffton comes around the corner and states he’s
being disrespectful, put him in handcuffs. Sgt. Streets was pulling on Plaintiff
and slammed me into the wall. Plaintiff head gets slammed to the floor by Sgt.
Streets. Lt. Cliffton put his knee in Plaintiff back and punch Plaintiff in my face,
and takes the shower key tried to stab Plaintiff eyes out but only Lt. Cliffton did
was blacking my eye.
(Doc. No. 1 at 5) (grammatical errors in original). As for Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff alleges the
following facts:
I had an black eye but is still giving Plaintiff problems that was caused by
Defendant Mr. Cliffton putting his knee in Plaintiff back on the floor in full
restraints. I am having pain on my side caused by Defendant Sgt. Streets
slamming Plaintiff to the floor and Lt. Cliffton punches me in the face. Plaintiff
has sores around my wrists by the key Mr. Cliffton had in his hands. Plaintiff
experience discomfort, pain, and soreness around my wrists and side and back.
(Id. at 7) (grammatical errors in original). Plaintiff seeks unspecified injunctive and declaratory
relief. (Id. at 8).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint
to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious
[or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore,
under § 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an
indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such
as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
2

Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to
ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable
under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments,” U.S.
CONST. amend. VIII, and protects prisoners from the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim,
an inmate must satisfy both an objective component–that the harm inflicted was sufficiently
serious–and a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable
state of mind. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). In adjudicating an
excessive force claim, the Court must consider such factors as the need for the use of force, the
relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury inflicted,
and, ultimately, whether the force was “applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Albers, 475
U.S. at 320-21. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has reiterated that “[a]n inmate who is
gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely
because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S.Ct.
1175, 1178-79 (2010). In Wilkins v. Gaddy, the Supreme Court observed:
This is not to say that the “absence of serious injury” is irrelevant to the Eighth
Amendment inquiry. “[T]he extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one factor
that may suggest ‘whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought
necessary’ in a particular situation.” The extent of injury may also provide some
indication of the amount of force applied. As we stated in Hudson, not “every
malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” “The
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments necessarily
3

excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force,
provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of
mankind.” An inmate who complains of a “push or shove” that causes no
discernible injury almost certainly fails to state a valid excessive force claim.
Injury and force, however, are only imperfectly correlated, and it is the latter that
ultimately counts.
Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted).
The Court finds that, taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true for the purposes of initial
review, and construing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, this action survives initial screening as
to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.
IV.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Complaint survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 1), survives initial review.
2. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a summons forms to fill out so that service may be
made on Defendants. Once the Court receives the summons forms, the U.S. Marshal
shall effectuate service on Defendants in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Signed: September 29, 2017

4