Friend v. Lewis et al
Filing
15
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar Plaintiff's claims. Viewing the Complaint (ECF No. 1 ) in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged th at Defendants acted with malice in violation of his right against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff has properly alleged a claim for a violation of his Eighth amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a well-established Constitutional right, qualified immunity does not apply to Defendants' alleged actions. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10 ) is denied. The Court will separately issue a Telephonic Case Management Conference Scheduling Order. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 7/23/2018. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TYREIS FRIEND,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPT. WADOLOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:17CV1684
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF No. 10]
Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10). The Court has been advised,
having reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs,1 and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is denied.
1
Defendants did not file a reply memorandum in support of the within motion.
The memorandum in opposition was served by mail on May 24, 2018. LR 7.1(e)
provides:
. . . the moving party may serve and file a reply memorandum in support of
any dispositive motion within fourteen (14) days after service of the
memorandum in opposition . . . . If the moving party was served with the
memorandum in opposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), or (F),
three days shall be added to the prescribed period as provided in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d).
Defendants’ permissive reply memorandum was, therefore, due on June 11, 2018. Thus,
the time for filing a reply has elapsed without a reply brief in support of the motion
having been filed. See LR 7.1(g).
(4:17CV1684)
I. Background
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, Ohio. He
was previously incarcerated at the Trumbull Correctional Institution (“TCI”) in Leavittsburg,
Ohio, where the alleged events took place. Defendants Capt. Michael Wadolowski and J. Lewis
are Correctional Officers at TCI. Complaint (ECF No. 1) at PageID #: 3.
On the evening of October 21, 2016, Capt. Wadolowski escorted Plaintiff from his cell to
the Transitional Placement Unit (“TPU”). ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3. Capt. Wadolowski was
accompanied by C.O. Lewis. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4. Plaintiff was handcuffed with his hands
behind his back. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3.
Plaintiff alleges that Capt. Wadolowski was immediately aggressive. Capt. Wadolowski
challenged Plaintiff, asking: “You think you are a tough guy yelling out the doors, huh?” ECF
No. 1 at PageID #: 3. As Capt. Wadolowski escorted Plaintiff towards the sallyport exit doors,
he shoved Plaintiff into the door with his knee. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3-4. Plaintiff, still
handcuffed, was unable to protect himself and the left side of his face struck a steel door. Upon
reaching the second door, Capt. Wadolowski again shoved Plaintiff, pushing the door open with
Plaintiff’s body. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4.
Plaintiff alleges the abuse continued outside. Capt. Wadolowski tossed Plaintiff over his
hip, throwing Plaintiff down onto his back. Capt. Wadolowski rolled Plaintiff face-down,
pressing his face into the ground. He pressed his thumbs into Plaintiff’s neck, attempting to hit
pressure points to cause pain and limit Plaintiff’s breathing. Other Correctional Officers hurried
2
(4:17CV1684)
over, and C.O. Lewis pulled Plaintiff back to his feet. Capt. Wadolowski announced to the other
officers that Plaintiff may try to spit at them. When Plaintiff turned his head to speak to other
inmates witnessing the incident, C.O. Lewis threw him to the ground again. Plaintiff landed on
his left side, hitting his face, chest and shoulder on the ground. The officers pulled Plaintiff back
to his feet, causing him more pain to his elbow and hyperextending his shoulders. ECF No. 1 at
PageID #: 4.
Plaintiff made repeated demands to be taken to medical due to pain in his elbow, back,
face, jaw, and neck. Medical staff examined Plaintiff’s head and instructed the officers to bring
Plaintiff to the TPU. Later that evening, two officers visited Plaintiff in the TPU and
photographed his injuries. After further requests from Plaintiff, a nurse came to clean and dress
his wounds. After being treated, Plaintiff was returned to his cell. Plaintiff requested and
received mental health treatment following the incident as well. He has had approximately 5
mental health appointments related to the incident. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4.
Plaintiff made a “Use of Force” written statement on October 22, 2016 while in the TPU.
ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 4. Having received no formal response after two weeks, Plaintiff sent
his complaint on to Deputy Warden Bowen and was told his grievance had been denied. Plaintiff
then filed another grievance with Chief Inspector Frederick, which was also denied. He filed an
appeal to the Chief Inspector of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, but
received no response as of the filing of the complaint with this Court. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 2.
3
(4:17CV1684)
Plaintiff was found guilty of violating several rules by the Rules Infraction Board. ECF
No. 1-4 at PageID #: 14-16. He appealed the ruling to the Warden. His appeal was denied. ECF
No. 1-4 at PageID #: 17.
A number of inmates witnessed the incident and filed affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s
version of events. See ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 37-39. Additionally, Plaintiff claims the
incident was captured on video, but he was informed by the Rules Infraction Board that no video
footage had been saved for review. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 5; ECF No. 1-4 at PageID #: 14.
II. Standard of Review
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must take
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and construe those allegations in a light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). A
cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility
in th[e] complaint.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 564. A pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 677-78
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations,
but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Id. at 678. A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. It
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible
4
(4:17CV1684)
on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The plausibility standard is not akin to a
“probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. When a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. at 557 (brackets omitted). “[When] the well-pleaded
facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679 (quoting Rule 8(a)(2)). The Court “need not accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation or an unwarranted factual inference.” Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn.,
695 F.3d 531, 539 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Analysis
Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. They argue that Defendants are
immune from suit under either the Eleventh Amendment or the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Defendants further argue that their actions do not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights
because Plaintiff suffered only de minimis injuries and because Defendants’ actions were
reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
Defendants argue first that the Eleventh Amendment renders them immune to suit when
acting in their official capacity. The Eleventh Amendment, however, does not bar a suit for
5
(4:17CV1684)
injunctive relief. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 89-90 (1989).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that when a state official acts in violation of the
Constitution “he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected
in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.” Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160
(1908). Plaintiff may bring an action for damages against Defendants in their personal capacity.
Maben v. Thelen, 887 F.3d 252, 271 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27
(1991)).2
Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s injuries are merely de minimis and insufficient to
establish an Eighth Amendment violation. This lies in direct contradiction to the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010), which states that the core of an excessive
force claim is not “whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather ‘whether force
was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically
to cause harm.’” Id. at 37 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). While the
degree of Plaintiff’s injury may serve as evidence as to the necessity of the force used, Plaintiff
need not suffer non-de minimis injury to have a valid complaint. He need only allege that
Defendants’ actions were meant to cause malicious harm. Williams v. Curtain, 631 F.3d 380,
384 (6th Cir. 2011).
2
Defendants’ claim Plaintiff, in his amended complaint, “seeks to hold
Defendants liable in their official capacities.” ECF No. 10 at PageID #: 79. However,
Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and Defendants cite to a non-existent
document in the case at bar – “Doc. 30-1, PageID #: 135 ¶ 8.”
6
(4:17CV1684)
Defendants claim that the use of force was necessary to establish control over Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, however, alleges that Capt. Wadolowski shoved him twice into the sallyport doors,
causing Plaintiff’s face and chest to impact the doors. ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 3-4. He also
claims that Capt. Wadolowski initially tripped and tossed him without provocation. ECF No. 1
at PageID #: 4. Taken in the most favorable light, Plaintiff’s claims sufficiently allege that
Defendants acted to cause Plaintiff harm, rather than in a good faith effort to maintain discipline.
Finally, Defendants claim they are protected by qualified immunity. Government
officials are protected 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.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The appropriate test, then, is whether
Defendants violated a constitutional right, and if the right was clearly established when the
violation occurred. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). Accepting the
allegations of the Complaint (ECF No. 1), Defendants used excessive, unprovoked force to cause
Plaintiff harm, without a good-faith effort to maintain control, in violation of Plaintiff’s wellestablished Eighth Amendment rights. Defendants are not entitled, at this time, to qualified
immunity from this action.
IV. Conclusion
For the above reasons, Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar Plaintiff’s claims.
Viewing the Complaint (ECF No. 1) in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged that Defendants acted with malice in violation of his right against cruel and unusual
7
(4:17CV1684)
punishment. Plaintiff has properly alleged a claim for a violation of his Eighth amendment rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a well-established Constitutional
right, qualified immunity does not apply to Defendants’ alleged actions.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is denied. The Court will
separately issue a Telephonic Case Management Conference Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 23, 2018
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
8
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?