GRIFFIN v. OVERMYER et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 9/27/2017. (nk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

1
2
3
4

BRIAN E. GRIFFIN,

7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION.

Plaintiff,

5
6

Civil Action No. 16-21 (BJR)

v.
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10
I.

11
12

INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge

13

Baxter (ECF 52), which recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’

14

motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 45). After reviewing the R&R, Petitioner’s objections

15

(ECF 53), and the relevant filings and legal authorities, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge

16

Baxter’s Report in its entirety.

17
Plaintiff Brian E. Griffin, acting pro se, brings this prisoner civil rights action against four
18
19

corrections officers assigned to the State Correctional Institution at Forest (“SCI-Forest”): Sergeant

20 Culver, Officer Adams, Officer Wood and Officer Moore; as well as SCI-Forest supervisory
21 personnel J. Bertolini (Housing Unit Manager), Major Paul A. Ennis, Lieutenant Settnek, and
22 Michael D. Overmyer (SCI-Forest Superintendent). ECF No. 27. Plaintiff claims that the defendant
23 officers used excessive force against him in three discrete incidents in violation of his Eighth and
24

Fourteenth Amendment rights and that the supervisory defendants violated his constitutional rights

25
through their deliberate indifference to the potential for harm by failing to protect him and by failing
to supervise and train subordinates.
1

1
2

The first incident began on August 29, 2015, at approximately 7:45 am when Plaintiff had
a verbal altercation with Corrections Officer Sibble regarding grievance paperwork.

The

3 disagreement escalated into a physical confrontation, and Plaintiff began punching Sibble in the
4 face, head, and chest. Silent video reveals that Sibble, with the help of Defendants Culver, Adams,
5 and two other officers who arrived on the scene, restrained Plaintiff, lowered him to the floor, and
6

pinned Plaintiff’s arms behind his back. Plaintiff states that during this process, his airway was cut

7
off for approximately 6-8 seconds by an officer’s knee on his back. Plaintiff was handcuffed and
8
9
10

shackled for transport to the medical unit.
Plaintiff’s second assertion of harm arises out of the manner in which he was escorted to the

11 medical unit. Video shows Defendants Moore and Woods escorting Plaintiff while he was bent
12 over facing the ground, with his hands lifted and held behind his back. Plaintiff claims this position
13 caused him to get dizzy and to stumble and black out. During the four minute walk to the medical
14

unit, Plaintiff briefly dropped to his knees three times. After the third time, two officers picked up

15
his legs to carry him the rest of the way. Other than being guided and carried, no force was used
16
17

during the escort. In the medical unit, Plaintiff told the nurse that his wrists and neck hurt. He was

18 examined, photographed, and determined not to require treatment.
19

Plaintiff’s third assertion of harm arises out of his treatment in the medical unit. Plaintiff

20 alleges that immediately before the exam, and out of view of any cameras, Defendants Moore and
21
22

Woods punched him in the face. Plaintiff’s testifies that he had his eyes closed when he was punched,
but he believes Settnek “was right there” at the time. ECF No. 48-1, p. 33.

23
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted against each of them, with
24
25

the exception of the third incident of alleged excessive force asserted against Defendants Woods
and Moore, which Defendants concede requires trial before a factfinder. (ECF 45.) The R&R
2

1
2

recommends granting the motion for partial summary judgment as to Defendants Culver, Adams,
Overmyer, Ennis, and Bertolini, and terminating each of them from this action. The R&R further

3 recommends granting partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against
4 Defendants Settnek, Woods, and Moore for alleged excessive force, and failure to supervise, train,
5 and/or protect, arising out of the manner in which Plaintiff was escorted to the medical unit. Finally ,
6

the R&R recommends that the motion for partial summary judgment be denied on behalf of

7
Defendant Settnek as to Plaintiff’s allegations of failure to supervise and protect arising out of the
8
9

alleged assault in the medical unit.

10

When a party objects to an R&R, the district court must review de novo those portions of

11

the R&R to which objection is made. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Fed.

12

R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, to obtain de novo review, a party must clearly and specifically identify

13

those portions of the R&R to which it objects. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). The

14

district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations

15
made by the Magistrate Judge. Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-74.
16
Plaintiff objects that Woods and Moore used excessive force when they transported him to

17
18

the medical unit and when they punched him in the medical unit. As to the latter claim, Plaintiff

19

misunderstands the R&R. Summary judgment for the excessive force claim arising out of the

20

alleged punch was neither requested nor granted. The claim survives for trial. 1

21
22

Having reviewed the video of the escort, the Court agrees with the R&R that no jury could
find a constitutional violation in the way Plaintiff was carried to the medical unit. The Eighth

23
24

Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII;

25
1

The Court also adopts the R&R’s denial of summary judgment for Defendant Settnek related to this claim, as there
is a factual dispute whether Settnek was present and failed to intervene or protect Plaintiff as he was allegedly punched
by Woods or Moore.

3

1
2

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318–19 (1986). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted
this prohibition to bar prison officials from using excessive force against inmates. See Hudson v.

3

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). The central inquiry to resolve a claim of excessive force requires

4

a determination of “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline

5

or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318,

6

326 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)). In making this determination,

7

inferences can be drawn by evaluating a number of factors: “(1) the need for the application of force;

8
(2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of injury

9
inflicted; (4) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the

10
11
12

responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them; and (5) any efforts made to temper the
severity of a forceful response.” Id. (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321); see also Brooks v. Kyler, 204

13

F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2000). Additionally, de minimis uses of physical force do not qualify as excessive

14

force unless the force is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Brooks, 204 F.3d at 107 (citing

15

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6). Not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of

16

action.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9.

17
18

Other than being guided and carried in this position, no force was used during the escort of
Plaintiff to the medical unit. Defendants properly restrained Plaintiff during the escort because he had

19
just assaulted a correctional officer. The use of force was minimal: officers handcuffed Plaintiff, bent

20
him at the waist and escorted him by the arms, and carried his feet after he dropped to his knees for the

21
22

third time. He was immediately evaluated by a nurse, who found no need for treatment. Summary

23

judgment for Defendants was appropriate on this claim.

24

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

25

(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF 52];

4

1
2

(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 45] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:

3

a. The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Culver,

4

Adams, Overmyer, Ennis, and Bertolini. Each is dismissed from this action.

5
6

b. The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims against Defendants Settnek, Woods, and Moore for

7
alleged excessive force and failure to supervise, train, and/or protect arising
8
9
10

out of the manner in which Plaintiff was escorted to the medical unit;
c. The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Defendant Settnek for

11

failure to supervise and protect arising out of the alleged assault in the medical

12

unit.

13
14

(3) The clerk shall send copies of this Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
DATED this 27th day of September, 2017.
16
17
18
19
20
21

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

22
23
24
25

5