HANKINS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 185

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER: AND NOW, this 22nd Day of December, 2011, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The motion for summary judgment 139 filed by Defendant Burnsworth shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Accordingly, JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entere d in favor of Defendant Timmie Burnsworth and against Plaintiff Robert Hankins as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim premised upon her alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 2. The motion for summary judgment 142 fil ed by the Commonwealth Defendants shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant McKnight. As to all other remaining claims against the Commonwealth Defendants, said moti on shall be GRANTED and JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Commonwealth Defendants and against Plaintiff Robert Hankins. 3. The motion for summary judgment 144 filed by the Fayette County Defendants shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it is based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, said motion is DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Barker and Brownfiel d premised upon their use of a stun belt. As to all other remaining claims against the Fayette County Defendants, said motion shall be GRANTED and JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Fayette County Defendants and against Plaintiff Robert Hankins. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on November 30, 2011 182 , is adopted as the opinion of this Court to the extent set forth herein. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 12/22/2011. (kas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-182-SJM-SPB

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
Plaintiff’s complaint in this civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court
on July 20, 2009 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise
Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
After extensive pretrial proceedings, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report
and Recommendation, dated on November 30, 2011 [182], in which she recommends
that: (1) Defendant Burnsworth’s Motion for Summary Judgment [139] be granted; (2)
the Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [142] be granted in part
and denied in part; and (3) the Fayette County Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [144] be denied insofar as it is based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, but otherwise granted on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
The parties were given fourteen (14) days within which to file their objections, if
any, to the Report and Recommendation and an additional extension of time thereafter.
Plaintiff filed his objections [184] on December 19, 2011.
After de novo review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with
the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections thereto, the Court is
Page 1 of 3

prepared to adopt the Report and Recommendation, except with respect to part
II.(D)(3)(d) at pages 26-29 of the R&R, pertaining to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim
against Fayette County Defendants Brownfield, Barker, Dunkard, and Matthews
premised upon their allegedly unconstitutional application of excessive force in
connection with the use of a “stun belt” on or about February 6, 2008. As to this
particular claim, the Court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact relative to
whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, as
Defendants claim, or whether it was applied maliciously in order to cause harm, as the
Plaintiff claims. At the same time, however, the only Defendants who appear to be
implicated in the use of the stun belt are Defendant Barker, who activated the stun belt,
and Defendant Brownfield, who ordered the belt to be activated by Barker. Construing
Plaintiff’s objections and the summary judgment record most favorably to Plaintiff, the
Court finds no disputed issue of material fact sufficient to establish liability on the part of
Defendants Dunkard and Matthews, who were present at the time of the incident but
would have had no meaningful opportunity to intervene with regard to the application of
the allegedly excessive force. Accordingly, summary judgment will be denied as to
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim insofar as it is asserted against
Defendants Barker and Brownfield.
Apart from the foregoing caveat, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are
otherwise lacking in merit. Accordingly, the following order is entered:

Page 2 of 3

AND NOW, this 22nd Day of December, 2011, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The motion for summary judgment [139] filed by Defendant Burnsworth shall
be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Accordingly, JUDGMENT shall be, and
hereby is, entered in favor of Defendant Timmie Burnsworth and against
Plaintiff Robert Hankins as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim premised
upon her alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
2. The motion for summary judgment [142] filed by the Commonwealth
Defendants shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff’s
First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant McKnight. As to all
other remaining claims against the Commonwealth Defendants, said motion
shall be GRANTED and JUDGMENT shall be, and hereby is, entered in favor
of the Commonwealth Defendants and against Plaintiff Robert Hankins.
3. The motion for summary judgment [144] filed by the Fayette County
Defendants shall be, and hereby is, DENIED insofar as it is based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, said motion
is DENIED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive
force claim against Defendants Barker and Brownfield premised upon their
use of a stun belt. As to all other remaining claims against the Fayette
County Defendants, said motion shall be GRANTED and JUDGMENT shall
be, and hereby is, entered in favor of the Fayette County Defendants and
against Plaintiff Robert Hankins.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on November
30, 2011 [182], is adopted as the opinion of this Court to the extent set forth herein.

s/

Sean J. McLaughlin
SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN
United States District Judge

cm:

All parties of record
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
Page 3 of 3