Lake v. Gardener et al

Filing 93

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting in part and declining to adopt in part 68 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 55 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 8/7/2018. (jpet, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Kentwan L. Lake,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ms. Gardener, Mr. Rennick, Ofc. Trusdale, Mr. )
Anderson, Ms. Salmon, Ms. Shannon, Ms.
)
Eury, Sgt. Baker,
)
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:17-cv-00655-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF
No. 55. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.),
this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On April 13, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted. ECF No. 68.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and Defendants filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 80, 81.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will
review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.

Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order
to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)).
The Magistrate Judge provides a thorough recitation of the facts of this case and the
applicable law in the Report which the Court incorporates by reference. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff alleged Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs,
used excessive force against him, and that his conditions of confinement were
unconstitutional. ECF No. 1. He raises four objections to the Report.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff exhausted
his administrative remedies. See ECF No. 68 at 4–7. After considering the record in this
case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear
error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of this argument.
Qualified Immunity
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment to the extent that
Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their official capacities on the basis of Eleventh Amendment
Immunity. ECF No. 68 at 7. In his objections, Plaintiff recites the Qualified Immunity
standard and argues that Defendants are not entitled to Qualified Immunity. ECF No. 80
at 3–4. After reviewing de novo the pleadings, the applicable law, the Report, and the
objections, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and incorporates
2

the portion of the Report pertaining to Eleventh Amendment Immunity by reference. This
objection is overruled.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Plaintiff alleges that he was assigned to the Crisis Intervention Unit at Kershaw
Correctional Institution on January 7, 2016; after he was denied a blanket, he began slicing
at his wrists with a razor blade and threatened to swallow it. Defendant Anderson told him
to give him the razor blade and administered chemical munitions. Plaintiff was then taken
to the medical department; he was allowed to rinse out his eyes and his lacerations were
treated. He contends that he was then placed back in cell without clothes or a blanket, that
he requested a shower for the next several days which was denied, and that he developed
a rash as a result of not being allowed to wash off the chemical munitions.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment with respect to this
claim. She provides a thorough recitation of the applicable law, including the standard for
holding a correctional officer liable for deliberate indifference to a plaintiff’s serious medical
needs, which the Court incorporates here by reference.
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that although he was permitted to wash out his
eyes, he still had residue from the chemical munitions on other parts of his body. ECF No.
80 at 5. He contends that he asked all of the Defendants to allow him to take a shower
over the next five days and they refused. Id. He acknowledges that he had a sink with
running water in his cell; however, he states that he was not given hot water or soap, that
it would have been difficult to clean the affected area in the sink, and that the cell was cold.
3

Id. at 5–6. Plaintiff asserts that the chemical munitions would reactivate and cause burning.
Id. at 7.
Upon review of the medical records provided in this case, it appears that Plaintiff
was seen by medical staff on the day that he was sprayed with chemical munitions. ECF
No. 55-5 at 15–16. He would not respond to questions regarding whether he had any
further plans to harm himself. Id. He was permitted to use an eyewash fountain and was
taken back to his cell. Id; see also ECF No. 55-7. Plaintiff was seen the following day and
on January 9, 2018, on follow-up sick calls and stated that he wanted to wash something
off of his skin. Id. at 15. It appears that he first reported a rash on January 19, 2018, and
was told to apply a cool compress and was given a hydrocortisone cream.1 Id. at 12.
Plaintiff contends that he was not allowed to wash off the chemical munitions but he
does not dispute that he had a sink with running water in his cell. As explained by the
Magistrate Judge, his decision not to use the sink because of its temperature does not
state a constitutional violation. See Mann v. Williams, No. 0:14-cv-1647-RMG, 2015 WL
5165152, at *2 (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 2015) (finding no constitutional violation under Fourth
Circuit precedent when inmate was seen by medical personnel soon after the use of
chemical munitions and was allowed to flush his face with cold water for several minutes,
even though the inmate did not have soap and the water to his cell was turned off after the

1

It appears to the Court, and Plaintiff has not denied, that his rash appeared after
he had been permitted to shower and that he was promptly treated for the rash.
Accordingly, any objection to a finding that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs with respect to the rash are overruled.
4

nurse left); Taylor v. Guthurter, No. 10-cv-967-GPM, 2011 WL 1792268, at *7 (S.D. Ill. May
10, 2011) (finding no constitutional violation where an inmate was not provided a shower
after being subjected to chemical munitions, but inmate failed to allege that his cell was
without running water or that he lacked any means to clean himself of the chemical
munitions); Brown v. Walker, No. 9:09-cv-3064-RMG-BM, 2010 WL 4484185, at * 5 (D.S.C.
Oct. 6, 2010) (finding no constitutional violation where inmate was provided running water
to wash off chemical spray), adopted by 2010 WL 4482100 (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2010); Jackson
v. Morgan, 19 F. App’x 97, 102 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding an inmate’s decontamination was
“adequate” where he was allowed to “flush[ ] his face and head with running water”).2
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated with respect to his
conditions of confinement. ECF No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that he was denied
a blanket3 and clothing in a cold cell when he was assigned to the Crisis Intervention Unit
which caused him to experience numbness and panic attacks; he further contends that he
was denied a shower for five days after chemical munitions were deployed against him
which caused a skin rash. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommends that summary judgment
2

Plaintiff attempts to distinguish this line of cases from the facts in his case by
stating that “these cases pertain to an inmate who never complained of further
assistance to clean himself from the pepper spray, and who were only administered
pepper spray to their facial areas.” ECF No. 80 at 6. Upon review of the applicable
caselaw, the Court finds that there is no basis for Plaintiff’s argument.
3

Plaintiff concedes that he was without a blanket for less than one day. ECF No.

1 at 5.
5

be granted for Defendants with respect to this claim because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate
that he suffered a serious or significant physical or mental injury or that there was a
substantial risk of such serious harm as a result of the alleged conditions. See ECF No.
68 at 15. The Magistrate Judge determined that the medical staff properly responded to
Plaintiff’s complaints as they were brought up, that Plaintiff did not inform the medical staff
that he was experiencing numbness, that Plaintiff failed to show that Defendants had
knowledge of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious injury based on his conditions
of confinement, and that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference with regard to Plaintiff’s allegations and violated his constitutional
rights. Id. at 16. After reviewing the pleadings, the applicable law, and the Report, the
Court respectfully disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual
punishments,” protects inmates from inhumane treatment and conditions during
incarceration. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). To succeed on an
Eighth Amendment claim that a prisoner was not provided humane conditions of
confinement, the prisoner must prove two components: “(1) that the deprivation of [a] basic
human need was objectively sufficiently serious, and (2) that subjectively the officials
act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634
(4th Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[T]he

constitutional prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment does not
mandate comfortable prisons, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized

6

measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth
Amendment violation.” Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “Only extreme deprivations are adequate to satisfy the objective
component of an Eighth Amendment claim regarding conditions of confinement.” De'Lonta,
330 F.3d at 634. “In order to demonstrate such an extreme deprivation, a prisoner must
allege a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged
conditions, or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the
prisoner's exposure to the challenged conditions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to
Plaintiff, as it must, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to this claim.

Regarding the objective

component of the Eighth Amendment analysis, Plaintiff has alleged that he suffered from
panic attacks and numbness and developed a rash as a result of the conditions of his
confinement.
With respect to the subjective component, liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Anderson and Gardener were aware that he was experiencing
physical symptoms as a result of his conditions of confinement. ECF No. 1 at 5. The
Magistrate correctly notes that Plaintiff’s medical records show no recorded complaint
regarding being cold or experiencing any numbness. ECF No. 68 at 16. However, Plaintiff
has alleged that Defendants Anderson and Gardener knew that he was experiencing

7

symptoms from the cold conditions before he was given a blanket. See ECF Nos. 1; 80 at
11. Further, Defendants fail to assert that the temperature of the cell changed after Plaintiff
was given a blanket such that he could comfortably use the blanket as a towel or a
washcloth in order to use the sink in his cell to clean off the chemical munitions.
Accordingly, it appears to the Court that this is only evidence that Plaintiff may have had
to choose between experiencing numbness and panic attacks from the cold because he
used his blanket to help clean off the chemical munitions or keeping warm but not being
able to wash off the chemical munitions. Based upon the record before this Court, and in
light of the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned concludes that there remains a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to this claim as against Anderson and Gardener
and respectfully declines to adopt this portion of the Report.
Excessive Force
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Gardener inflicted excessive force against him by
denying Plaintiff a shower and a blanket.4 ECF Nos. 1; 62 at 9–10. The Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff could not show that Gardener acted with any force against him;
moreover, even assuming without deciding that Gardener’s actions could be considered
excessive force, in examining the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable jury could
find that Gardener acted maliciously and sadistically to cause physical pain in light of the

4

As noted in the Report, Plaintiff clarified that he intended to raise a claim for
excessive force against Defendant Anderson for his use of chemical munitions and the
Magistrate Judge allowed for supplemental briefing. See ECF No. 18 n. 3; see also
ECF No. 62 at 8–9. Accordingly, this claim will be addressed in a subsequent Report
and Order.
8

reasonably perceived threat Plaintiff posed to himself. ECF No. 68 at 18. Plaintiff objects
to the Magistrate Judge’s finding and argues that he has produced enough evidence to
satisfy the subjective and objective components of his excessive force claim. ECF No. 80
at 13–16.
Upon review of the pleadings, the applicable law, the Report, and the objections, the
Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge and overrules this objection. There
is no indication in the record that Gardener used force maliciously and sadistically to cause
harm. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312, 322 (1986) (listing four factors to consider when deciding whether a defendant showed
wantonness in the infliction of pain).
Therefore, the Court adopts in part and respectfully declines to adopt in part the
Report as set out in this Order. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
in part with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities,
Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, Plaintiff’s claim for
excessive force against Defendant Gardener, and Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim
against Defendants Rennick, Trusdale, Salmon, Shannon, Eury, and Baker. Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in part with respect to Plaintiff’s conditions of
confinement claim against Defendants Anderson and Gardener. Plaintiff’s claim for
excessive force against Defendant Anderson remains pending.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 7, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

10