Hogan v. Kloesel et al
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM DECISION: GRANTING 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Pamela A. Mathy. (tr1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT of TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
M
2
COURT
DEXTER DWIGHT HOGAN,
TDCJ # 1361368,
CLRK
§
WESTE
§
RGT
U.ICT QF TEXAS
BV
§
Plaintiff
§
§
V.
§
§
ARRON KLOESEL and JUAN AMADOR,
Civil Action
No. SA-11-CA-60-PMA
§
§
Defendants
§
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dexter Dwight Hogan's 42 U. S.C.
§ 1983
Civil Rights Complaint
(Docket Entry # 2) and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Entry # 35).
This
Memorandum Decision is entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the consent ofthe parties.
(See
Entries ## 4 1-43.)
I.
Hogan's § 1983 Complaint alleges on September 22, 2010 he was assaulted by Officer Aaron
Kloesel at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Connally Unit when he was "slammed
to [the] floor while handcuffled]" and suffered "neck and back pains." He alleges Officer Juan
Amador failed to protect him. He seeks to have the officers involved "penalized or even fired" and
he seeks to have the "disciplinary case.
. .
overturned."
Defendants move for summary judgment contending the record shows: Officer Kloesel's use
offorce was justified and Hogan suffered no actionable injury; Hogan has no failure to protect claim
against Officer Amador; andHogan failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome Defendants'
qualified immunity defenses.
II.
A party is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) where the record
shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. A party against whom summaryjudgment is sought may not rest on the allegations or denials
of his pleadings, but must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate a "genuine issue
for trial.'" Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202
(1986). A dispute concerning a material fact is "genuine" and sufficient to overcome a summary
judgment motion "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Id. When presented with a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must
present evidence in support of his claims, and incompetent, subjective, or conclusoiy sworn
allegations are not sufficient to meet this burden. See Hall v. Thomas, 190 F. 3d 693, 696 (5th Cir.
1999) ("[a prisoner's] subjective complaints, unsupported by evidence, are insufficient to defeat
summary judgment"); Marshall v. East Carroll Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist., 134 F. 3d 319, 324(5th
Cir. 1998) (affidavits stating legal conclusions without reference to material facts are not competent);
Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. WangLab., Inc., 922 F. 2d 220,225 (5th Cir. 1991) (affidavits
setting forth "ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law" not competent). Summary
judgment may be granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden
of proof at trial." Celotex Corp.
v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265
(1986).
-2-
-ATo proceed under
federal rights. Daniels
In Hudson
v.
§
v.
1983 the plaintiff must show the violation
of his constitutional or other
Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-3 1, 106 5. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986).
McMillian, 503 U.S.
1, 7, 9, 112 S. Ct.
995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992), the Supreme
Court summarized the standard applicable for analyzing prisoner's Eighth Amendment excessive
force claims as follows:
[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in
violation of the [Eighth Amendment] Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the
core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.
That is not to say that every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a
federal cause of action. []"Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem
unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates a prisoner's
constitutional rights"[]. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and
unusual" punishments necessarily 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."
(prior citations omitted). To overcome summary judgment, a plaintiff must present evidence in
support of an excessive force claim that would allow a reasonable jury to find an injury resulting
from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and the excessiveness was clearly unreasonable.
Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F. 3d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 2009).
Defendants' contend the evidence shows: On September 22, 2010, Officer Kloesel was
escorting Hogan to the desk area when Hogan became belligerent and tried to strike Kloesel with his
right elbow. Officer Kloesel placed Hogan on the ground using the "least amount of force
necessary." Officer Amador then assisted Kloesel in restraining Hogan, and additional staff were
-3-
alerted. Hogan was examined by staff Nurse Shirley Pfeil who did not observe any injuries to Hogan
and Hogan did not complain at the time of any injuries as a result of the incident.
Defendant Kloesel moves for sunmiary judgment contending the record shows Hogan was
threatening and belligerent and Officer Kloesel's use of force was justified and no more than
necessary to restore order. Furthermore, Hogan failed to sustain an actionable injury. When
presented with a summary judgment motion a plaintiff is required to "go beyond the pleadings and
by [his] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp.
v.
Catrett, 477
U.S. at 324. Hogan's responses to Defendants' summary judgment motion (Entries ## 45 and 46)
are not sworn, and thus not competent summaryjudgment evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)( 1 )(A).
Furthermore, Hogan's responses are vague, rambling, and conclusoiy. See Freeman v. Texas Dep 't
of Criminal
Justice, 369 F. 3d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 2004) (conclusory allegations not sufficient to
create a material issue of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment). Hogan's earlier response
to this Court's Show Cause Order (Entry # 4), is also unsworn and thus not competent summary
judgment evidence. The sworn allegations of a complaint may be competent summary judgment
evidence and sufficient to create a material issue for trial. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F. 3d 762, 764
n.l (5th Cir. 2003). However, Hogan's original complaint (see Entry # 2) is vague and conclusoiy
and not sufficient to create a material issue. Furthermore, the medical records show Hogan suffered
no actionable injury as a result of the September 22, 2010 incident, and absent an injury he has no
basis for a civil rights claim. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F. 3d 339, 347 n.24 (5th Cir. 2006)
("Medical records of sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an inmate's
-4-
[civil rights] allegations"). Because Hogan failed to present competent evidence presenting a
material issue of fact for trial, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
-BA prison official may be liable under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to
prison health and safety conditions only if he knows an inmate faces a substantial risk of serious
harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811(1994). Because Hogan has no basis for an
assault claim against Officer Kloesel, Hogan has no failure to protect claim against Officer Amador.
Furthermore, Hogan's claims for damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities
are barred by qualified immunity. Qualified or good-faith immunity extends to government officials
performing discretionary functions "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, 102 S. Ct. 2727,73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). Determination of qualified
immunity claims require a court to examine: whether the facts a plaintiff alleges or has shown make
out a constitutional violation; and whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was "clearly
established" at the time the events in question occurred. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129
S. Ct. 808, 815-16, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009). Where a plaintiff fails to show the violation
of a
constitutional right or the right was "clearly established" at the time, the public official is protected
by qualified immunity. Id. at 820-23. Defendants in their individual capacities have invoked
qualified immunity and Hogan failed to introduce evidence sufficient to show the violation of his
-5-
clearly established constitutional rights, and thus Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See
Id.
As a result of the incident of September 22, 2010, Hogan was found guilty in a TDCJ
disciplinary proceeding of assaulting Officer Kloesel; Hogan lost his recreation and commissary
privileges for forty-five days, but did not lose good-time credit. (See Entry #2 cx. 1.) Hogan's civil
rights challenge to this disciplinary proceeding is without merit. Because Hogan did not lose good-
time credits or any other protected liberty interest there is no predicate for a habeas corpus or civil
rights due process claim. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,483-87, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed.
2d 418 (1995). Furthermore, Hogan failed to show the disciplinary proceeding denied him due
process. See
Wolffv.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-58, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974).
His claim that the assault charge was not adequately supported by the evidence is defied by the
record.
III.
Accordingly, Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (Entry # 35) is GRANTED and
Hogan's § 1983 Complaint (Entry #2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other pending
motions are DENIED as moot.
DATED:May
1'
,2012
PAMELA A. MATH
United States Magistrate Judge
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?