Brown v. Rodriguez et al
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The District Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of defendants on each of plaintiffs claims, each side to bear its own costs. Signed by Judge Pamela A. Mathy. (wg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
BARRY A. BROWN,
TDCJ-CID No. 2041759,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY ERIC RODRIGUEZ, Badge No.
4002,
Defendant.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
CIVIL NO. SA-15-CA-396-PM
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to the consent of the parties and transfer of the case to the undersigned,1 and
consistent with the authority vested in the United States Magistrate Judges under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(1) and Appendix C of the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to
United States Magistrate Judges in the Western District of Texas, the following Memorandum
Decision and Order to address pending motions.
I. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is noted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
II. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, Barry A. Brown (“plaintiff”), acting pro se, then in the custody of the Bexar
County Adult Detention Center and now in the custody of the Texas Department of Public
Safety–Criminal Institutions Division, initiated this suit on or about May 12, 2015, when he filed
1
Docket nos. 6, 7, 21.
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)2 and an original complaint naming two
defendants, Bexar County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Eric Rodriguez (“Deputy Rodriguez”)
and the Bexar County Adult Detention Center (“BCADC”).3 Plaintiff’s original complaint
asserts two claims, one for excessive use of force and a second for denial of medical care, each
arising on March 30, 2015.4 Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify the relief plaintiff seeks, other
than having his “excessive force claim granted and other relief to which I may be entitled”
awarded to him.5 More specifically, plaintiff states in his sworn complaint that on March 30,
2015:
!
[Deputy Rodriguez] “assaulted me using ‘excessive force’ namely by slamming
the cell door on the left side of my body (repeatedly), which caused a serious knee
injury and bruises and lacerations on my left arm;”6
!
“The said officer assaulted me using ‘excessive force’ for about twenty five (25)
to thirty (30) seconds by backing up then lunging forward, ramming the cell door
with the left side of his body while my body (was not) clear of the cell door;”7 and
!
“After the incident I told the said officer that I could not stand on my left knee and
2
Docket no. 2.
3
Docket no. 1 at 1 (“original complaint”). As discussed below, on July 29, 2015, the
Court dismissed plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim against BCADC after plaintiff sought to
file an amended complaint which no longer named BCADC as a party. See docket no. 19 at 2.
4
Id. at 3-5.
5
Id. at 4.
6
Id.
7
Id. Plaintiff provides a copy of his grievance form, dated March 30, 2015, which
contains a varying depiction of the incident: “Detention Officer Rodriguez 4002 did use an
‘excessive’ use of force on me namely by slamming the cell door on my left arm and left leg
remained pinned, which caused lacerations on my left arm and left leg.” Id. at 7.
2
that I was having (severe) pain, I requested that he . . . get me medical treatment.”8
Plaintiff alleges he received medical treatment from the medical department the next day, March
31, 2015, and “they gave me an ice pack for my knee and released me.”9
On May 20, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and
summons issued.10 On June 9, 2015, defendants filed a corrected motion to dismiss.11 On July 8,
2015, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint.12 On July 29, 2015, Judge Ezra entered an
order which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss BCADC as a party defendant but, construing
Brown’s allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, declined to dismiss plaintiff’s
excessive use of force claim against Deputy Rodriguez and denied as moot plaintiff’s motion to
amend his complaint.13
8
Id. at 5. Plaintiff also alleges Deputy Rodriguez refused to notify his supervisor or
provide medical treatment to plaintiff and “started calling me racial slurs.” Id.
9
Id. In an unsworn grievance dated March 30, 2015, plaintiff stated he suffered
“lacerations on my left arm and left leg.” Id. at 7.
10
Docket nos. 3-5.
11
Docket no. 9. Deputy Rodriguez submitted one exhibit in support of his motion to
dismiss, Exhibit A—plaintiff’s medical records from March 31st, April 3rd, and April 7th, 2015.
Id. exhibit A.
12
Docket no. 16.
13
Docket no. 19. With respect to plaintiff’s allegations against Deputy Rodriguez, the
Court’s July 29, 2015 order concluded plaintiff’s excess use of force claim against Deputy
Rodriguez should not be dismissed, rejecting Deputy Rodriguez’s arguments that plaintiff’s
allegations were “conclusory,” did not establish the incident “was anything more than an
accident,” and plaintiff’s injuries were de minimis. Id. at 2-4. Because defendant submitted
plaintiff’s medical records in support of his argument plaintiff suffered “no injury,” the Court
construed defendant’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment. Id. at 4. The Court
found that Brown’s sworn complaint (in which Brown states he “suffered pain and thereafter he
walked with a limp and required a knee brace”) and Brown’s evidence that “Rodriguez thereafter
3
On July 30, 2015, the Court entered its initial scheduling order which established the
following deadlines: September 21, 2015 as the deadline to file any motions to amend or
supplement pleadings or join parties; December 4, 2015 as the deadline for discovery; and
December 18, 2015 as the deadline to file any dispositive motions.14 On July 31, 2015, Judge
Ezra transferred this case to the docket of the undersigned based on the consent of the parties.15
On August 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a second motion to amend complaint, seeking to “join
‘Bexar County’ as a defendant party” and again allege a deficient policy, practice or custom by
the County.16 On August 19, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend, noting that
plaintiff earlier “voluntarily dismissed any claims against the County” after BCADC moved to
dismiss plaintiff’s claims against it, and plaintiff’s “three-page submission . . . makes [only]
conclusory assertions that the County has a constitutionally deficient custom, policy, or practice
relating the alleged excessive use of force.”17
On August 25, 2015, plaintiff filed motions to appoint counsel, for jury trial, and for a
conference with counsel.18 The same day, the Court entered three separate orders which denied
called Brown a ‘racial slur’ . . . which suggests Rodriguez acted maliciously” raised genuine
issues of material fact to preclude entry of summary judgment at that time. Id. at 3, 4-5. The
July 29, 2015 order cited Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992), but not the
then-recent (June 22, 2015) decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2466
(2015).
14
Docket no. 20.
15
Docket no. 21.
16
Docket no. 22 at 3.
17
Text-only order dated Aug. 19, 2015.
18
Docket nos. 24, 25, 26.
4
plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, mooted plaintiff’s motion for jury trial, and denied
plaintiff’s motion to meet and confer.19
On August 26, 2015, Deputy Rodriguez filed his answer to plaintiff’s original
complaint.20 In the answer, defendant alleges six affirmative defenses, including qualified
immunity, and demands a trial by jury.21
On August 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the ruling which denied
plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.22 The same day, the Court entered an order denying
plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.23
On December 7, 2015, Deputy Rodriguez filed a motion for summary judgment.24 The
same day, the Court entered a seven-page order informing plaintiff of summary judgment
procedures and calling upon plaintiff to file a response to defendant’s motion for summary
judgment by December 28, 2015.25 On December 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a “motion for
summary judgment,” which sets out plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary
19
Text-only orders dated Aug. 25, 2015.
20
Docket no. 27.
21
Id. at 1.
22
Docket no. 28.
23
Text-only order dated Aug. 28, 2015.
24
Docket no. 35. Deputy Rodriguez submitted two exhibits in support of his motion:
Exhibit A—affidavit of Deputy Rodriguez and Exhibit B—affidavit of Darryl B. Thomas, M.D.
Id. exhibits A, B.
25
Docket no. 36.
5
judgment and asks for entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of plaintiff.26 In his affidavit,
plaintiff testifies, in sum, that on March 30, 2015:
!
“as I exited my cell the name officer slammed the cell door on parts of my body,
then he continued ramming the cell, assaulting me using excessive force . . . ;”27
!
“I then requested medical care but the named officer . . . denied me medical
care;”28
!
“I was in severe pain, I ask the officer to call in a code one—(which is a medical
emergency code for BCADC), the named officer refused to call in a code one and
refused to report the incident;” and29
!
“I requested medical care for the injuries the named officer caused and (several)
other inmates ask the named officer to get me medical care, the officer refused to
have me seen by medical.”30
26
Docket no. 38. Plaintiff attached two exhibits to the motion he filed with the District
Clerk: Exhibit B—affidavit of plaintiff and Exhibit C—affidavit of Hakeem Hampton. Id.
exhibits B, C. Although plaintiff’s motion also references two other exhibits (Exhibit A—policy
and/or custom of BCADC, page 1 of inmate handbook 2013, and Exhibit D—affidavit of inmate
Raul Sandoval), no such exhibits were attached to plaintiff’s motion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not
file a separate response to Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment and the Court
liberally construes plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as a response to Deputy Rodriguez’s
motion.
27
Id., exhibit B at 1.
28
Id. at 2.
29
Id.
30
Id. Plaintiff also submits the affidavit of Hakeem Hampton, “an inmate incarcerated at
the Bexar County Adult Detention Center.” Docket no. 38, exhibit C at 1. Hampton testifies
“[o]n March 30, 2015 on AF Unit I was eating my meal when I saw Officer Rodriguez run
towards eleven cell and started ramming the cell door. I could see part of inmate Brown’s arm
and leg in between the cell door.” Hampton also states “[s]everal of us inmates demanded that
the officer, Rodriguez, send inmate Brown to medical, but he refused to do so.” Id. at 1-2.
Hampton does not specifically state that Rodriguez “ramm[ed]” the cell door on plaintiff, why
Hampton concluded the action could be described as “ramming,” that he knows plaintiff’s arm
and leg were injured (and why), or that Hampton himself asked Rodriguez to send inmate Brown
to medical.
6
On December 30, 2015, Deputy Rodriguez filed his response to plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment.31 On January 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply in support of plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment.32 On January 14, 2016, defendant filed an objection to plaintiff’s reply.33
On February 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s objection.34 On February 25, 2016,
plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint seeking to assert claims against BCADC and
Sheriff Susan Pamerleau.35 On March 1, 2016, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion.36
On March 15, 2016, defendant filed a motion to strike certain discovery requests of plaintiff.37
On March 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a “corrected” motion for summary judgment.38 On March 28,
2016, plaintiff filed a motion to “dismiss” defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery
requests.39 On March 29, 2016, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s corrected motion for
summary judgment.40 On March 31, 2015, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s motion to
31
Docket no. 39.
32
Docket no. 40.
33
Docket no. 41.
34
Docket no. 42.
35
Docket no. 43.
36
Docket no. 44.
37
Docket no. 46.
38
Docket no. 48.
39
Docket no. 50.
40
Docket no. 49.
7
“dismiss” defendant’s motion to strike.41
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Unless otherwise noted, the parties do not appear to dispute certain of the following facts
which are set out to provide a factual background and context for the legal issues addressed in
this ruling: On March 30, 2015, plaintiff was an inmate housed at BCADC. Plaintiff and Deputy
Rodriguez agree that plaintiff was involved in an incident in which plaintiff’s left arm and left
leg were caught between the cell door and the side of the cell. Plaintiff claims Deputy Rodriguez
acted intentionally and maliciously to cause him harm; Deputy Rodriguez denies intent to harm
plaintiff and claims any contact between the cell door and plaintiff was an accident. Plaintiff
claims he suffered injuries as a result of the incident; deputy Rodriguez claims any injuries
suffered by plaintiff were de minimis.
IV. ISSUES
1.
Whether defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied.
2.
Whether plaintiff’s motion or corrected motion for summary judgment should be
granted or denied.
3.
Whether plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint should be granted or denied.
4.
Whether defendant’s motions to strike plaintiff’s discovery requests and corrected
motion for summary judgment be granted or denied.
5.
Whether plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s motion to strike should be
granted or denied.
6.
Whether any other motions or requests for relief should be granted or denied.
41
Docket no. 51.
8
V. STANDARDS
A.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The standard to be applied in deciding a motion for summary judgment is set forth in
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part as follows:
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.42
Mere allegations of a factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise proper
motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 requires that there be no genuine issue of material fact.43
A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing law.44 A
dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.45 Therefore, summary judgment is proper if, under governing
laws, there is only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict; if reasonable finders of fact could
resolve a factual issue in favor of either party, summary judgment should not be granted.46
The movant on a summary judgment motion bears the initial burden of providing the
court with a legal basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which it alleges
42
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548,
2552 (1986).
43
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).
44
Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 616 (5th Cir. 1994).
45
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Wise v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours &
Co., 58 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 1995).
46
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.
9
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.47 The burden then shifts to the party
opposing the motion to present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for
summary judgment.48 All facts and inferences drawn from those facts must be viewed in the
light favorable to the party resisting the motion for summary judgment.49 “The court need
47
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) provides:
Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion
only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). See also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53.
48
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. at 2514-15.
49
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1774 (2007); Hibernia Nat’l Bank
v. Carner, 997 F.2d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1993). The Supreme Court explained in Scott that:
At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to [the] facts. As we
have emphasized, “[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule
56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmonving party, there is no
‘genuine issue for trial.’” “The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material
fact.” “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly
contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court
should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for
summary judgment.”
550 U.S. at 380, 127 S.Ct. at 1776 (emphasis in original) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356
(1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. at 2510).
10
consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.”50 Summary
judgment motions permit the Court to resolve a lawsuit without the necessity of a trial if there is
no genuine dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.51 “A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be
presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”52
If “the burden of proof at trial lies with the nonmoving party, the movant may satisfy its
initial burden by showing – that is, pointing out to the district court – that there is an absence of
evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.”53 The movant “must demonstrate the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact, but does not have “to negate the elements of the nonmovant’s
case.”54 “If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment
must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant’s response.”55 On the other hand, if the movant
meets its burden and the non-movant cannot provide some evidence to support its claim,
summary judgment is appropriate.56 The Court may enter an order that does not grant all the
50
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3).
51
See Fields v. City of South Houston, Tex., 922 F.2d 1183, 1187 (5th Cir. 1991).
52
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2).
53
Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325,
106 S.Ct. at 2554) (internal punctuation omitted), cert. denied __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 355 (2010).
54
Duffie, 600 F.2d at 371; Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir.
2005).
55
Quorum Health Res., L.L.C. v. Maverick County Hosp. Dist., 308 F.3d 451, 471 (5th
Cir. 2002) (citing Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc)).
56
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 824, 123 S.Ct. 111 (2002).
11
relief requested by the motion, but states that “any material fact—including an item of damages
or other relief—that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case.”57
If the nonmovant cannot adequately defend against a motion for summary judgment, the
remedy is a motion for relief under Rule 56(d), which provides:
(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by
affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential
to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.58
Discovery motions under Rule 56(d) are “broadly favored and should be liberally granted
because the rule is designed to safeguard non-moving parties from summary judgment motions
that they cannot adequately oppose.”59 To be entitled to a continuance of a summary judgment
proceeding to obtain further discovery prior to a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
party opposing the motion must demonstrate how additional time and discovery will enable the
party to rebut the movant’s allegations there are no genuine issues of material fact.60
57
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(g).
58
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d).
59
Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 2010) (discussing Rule 56(f)) (internal
punctuation omitted); Culwell v. City of Fort Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006) (same);
International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991) (explaining that
under Rule 56(f), “[w]here the party opposing the summary judgment informs the court that its
diligent efforts to obtain evidence from the moving party have been unsuccessful, a continuance
of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a
matter of course.”) (citation and internal punctuation omitted), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059, 112
S. Ct. 936 (1992); see also Sapp v. Memorial Hermann Healthcare Sys., 406 Fed. A’ppx 866,
869 (5th Cir. 2010).
60
See Raby, 600 F.3d at 561 (request for stay “must set forth a plausible basis for
believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a reasonable time frame, probably
12
B.
Section 1983
Section 1983 does not create any substantive rights, but instead provides a remedy for
violations of federal statutory and constitutional rights.61 Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.62
To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff’s claim for relief must allege facts establishing
that: (1) plaintiff has been deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States; and (2) defendant acted under color of state law.63 The United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit has held that “section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights secured
by the Constitution, not violations of duties of care arising out of tort law.”64
C.
Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity shields certain public officials performing discretionary functions
from civil damage liability if their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the
exist and indicate how the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending
summary judgment motion”) (citations and internal punctuation omitted).
61
LaFleur v. Tex. Dep’t of Health, 126 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997); Jackson v. City of
Atlanta, Tex., 73 F.3d 60, 63 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 818, 117 S. Ct. 70 (1996).
62
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
63
Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist., 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012);
Randolph v. Cervantes, 130 F.3d 727, 730 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 822, 119 S. Ct.
65 (1998); Fyfe v. Curlee, 902 F.2d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 1990); Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200,
202 (5th Cir. 1989).
64
Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1375 (5th Cir. 1987).
13
rights they are alleged to have violated.65 Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity
defense, “plaintiff has the burden to rebut” the defense.66 Whether a defendant is entitled to
immunity from suit as a result of qualified immunity is a two step inquiry: (1) whether the
plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether
plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant’s conduct was objectively
unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.67
“Clearly established” means that the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that
a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”68 “[L]ower
courts are ‘permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the
qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances of the
particular case at hand.’”69 “Even if a defendant’s conduct actually violates a plaintiff’s
constitutional right, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively
reasonable.”70
65
Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 279 (5th Cir. 1992).
66
Austin v. Johnson, 328 F.3d 204, 208 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2003); Thompson v. Upshur Cnty.,
Tex., 245 F.3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001); Pierce v. Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1997).
67
Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2005); Jacobs v. W. Feliciana
Sheriff’s Dept., 228 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320,
325 (5th Cir. 1998)).
68
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039 (1987); Michalik,
422 F.3d at 258; Thompson, 245 F.3d at 457.
69
Collier v. Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214, 217-18 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241-42, 129 S. Ct. 808, 821 (2009)).
70
Duckett, 950 F.2d at 280.
14
The Fifth Circuit has encouraged the district courts to require highly fact-specific
pleadings by a plaintiff in a § 1983 lawsuit who attempts to overcome a plea of qualified
immunity.71 “‘[P]laintiffs must demonstrate prior to discovery that their allegations are
sufficiently fact-specific to remove the cloak of protection afforded by an immunity defense.’ A
complaint which raises the likely issue of immunity cannot be cast in ‘broad, indefinite and
conclusory terms,’ but must include detailed facts supporting the contention that the plea of
immunity cannot be sustained.”72 “Qualified immunity protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent
or those who knowingly violate the law.’”73 “Qualified immunity purposefully shields police
officers’ split-second decisions made without clear guidance from legal rulings.”74
D.
Denial of Medical Care
To establish a civil rights claim for the denial of medical care, a prisoner must allege and
prove the prison authorities were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical
needs.75 A 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
71
Hick v. Bexar Cnty., Tex., 973 F. Supp. 653, 673 (W.D. Tex. 1997) (citations
omitted), aff’d, 137 F.3d 1352 (5th Cir. 1998).
72
Hick, 973 F. Supp. at 673 (citations omitted). See also Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190,
195 (5th Cir. 1996).
73
Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572, 579-82 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092 (1986)).
74
Id. at 582.
75
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291 (1978).
15
serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.76 In
Domino v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice,77 the Fifth Circuit described the “deliberate
indifference” standard as follows:
Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet. It is indisputable
that an incorrect diagnosis by prison medical personnel does not suffice to state a
claim for deliberate indifference. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the officials
‘refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly,
or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard
for any serious medical needs.’ Furthermore, the decision whether to provide
additional treatment ‘is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment.’ And,
the ‘failure to alleviate a significant risk that [the official] should have perceived,
but did not’ is insufficient to show deliberate indifference.78
Negligence is not a basis for a civil rights action under Section 1983,79 and “[m]edical
malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”80
Disagreement with a physician’s course of treatment is not a basis for a Section 1983 civil rights
claim,81 and likewise “[u]nsuccessful medical treatment does not give rise to a Section 1983
cause of action.”82 The Fifth Circuit has recognized that there is no significant distinction
between pretrial detainees and convicted inmates concerning basic human needs such as medical
care, and consequently the analysis applicable to the claims of pretrial detainees and convicted
76
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994).
77
239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001).
78
Id. at 756.
79
See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-336, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-667 (1986).
80
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. at 292.
81
See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997).
82
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
16
prisoners is the same.83
VI. ANALYSIS
A.
Deputy Rodriguez’s Motion for Summary Judgment
1.
excessive force
Deputy Rodriguez moves for summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim
asserted against him on three main grounds: (1) “the incident in question was a lawful use of
force and there was no intent to cause Plaintiff bodily harm;”84 (2)“Plaintiff’s injury is clearly de
minimis;”85 and (3) “Plaintiff’s injuries show that the force applied by Deputy Rodriguez is not
sufficient to be ‘repugnant to the conscience.’”86 Plaintiff, opposing summary judgment and
moving for summary judgment himself, argues the use of “excessive force” was “not an
accident”87 and his “alleged injuries are more than de minimis.”88
83
See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 643 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
84
Docket no. 35 at 4.
85
Id. at 5.
86
Id.
87
Docket no. 38 at 3.
88
Id. at 2. As a preliminary matter, there are three important differences between the
record reviewed in connection with this ruling and the state of the record at the time of the
Court’s July 29, 2015 ruling to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s excessive use of
force claim (construed as a motion for summary judgment). First, this ruling expressly cites and
applies the June 22, 2015 decision in Kingsley. Second, this ruling is entered after both sides had
an opportunity for discovery. Third, this ruling considers new evidence submitted by both sides.
Specifically, this ruling not only considers plaintiff’s medical records, submitted in support of
defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss with an authenticating affidavit from the custodian of the
records, but also the affidavit from Darryl B. Thomas, M.D., a board certified orthopedic
surgeon, who provides opinion testimony based on his review of plaintiff’s treatment records.
17
To prevail on an excessive force claim, “a pretrial detainee must show only that the force
purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable.”89 The following six
nonexclusive factors “bear on the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the force used:”
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of
force used;
the extent of the plaintiff’s injury;
any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force;
the severity of the security problem at issue;
the threat reasonably perceived by the officers; and
whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.90
The Court must also consider the reasonableness of the defendant’s use of force “from the
perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer” and in “deference to policies and
practices needed to maintain order and institutional security.”91
Although the central consideration in this ruling concerns defendant’s contention that
plaintiff’s injuries are de minimis, the Court briefly reviews the summary judgment argument and
evidence as to other Kingsley/Hudson factors. With respect to whether plaintiff was actively
resisting and the need for the use of some force, Brown does not contest that Deputy Rodriguez
89
Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2473.
90
Id. During the pendency of this action, the Supreme Court held, in Kingsley, that an
objective reasonableness standard applies to pretrial detainee’s excessive force claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment. 135 S.Ct. at 2473. Prior to Kingsley, Hudson stated that the “core
judicial injury” was “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999.
Hudson’s requirement that the “pretrial detainee must show that the officers were subjectively
aware that their use of force was unreasonable,” is no longer applicable to a pretrial detainee’s
excessive force claim. Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2470 (emphasis in original). Rather, “a pretrial
detainee must show only that the force purposefully or knowingly used against him was
objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 2473, 75. To be clear, the “[f]ive Hudson factors (see Benoit,
596 Fed. App’x at 267) are included in the six factors for consideration identified in Kingsley.
91
Kingsley, 135 S.Ct. at 2475.
18
“instructed the inmates” to “rack up” pursuant to BCADC procedures, “which require the
inmates to return to their cells,” and plaintiff “attempted to exit the cell which violated [Deputy
Rodriguez’s] order.”92 Plaintiff confirms he “was exit[ing] his cell,” does not specifically contest
that he was acting in defiance of Deputy Rodriguez’s order, and provides no evidence to justify
his refusal to obey the order.93 Plaintiff also does not dispute that Deputy Rodriguez’s order was
lawful or that Deputy Rodriguez’s order was made pursuant to BCADC policy. The “use of
force is permissible in a variety of situations, not only when it is necessary to protect oneself
from an imminent physical attack by an inmate.”94 “Inmates cannot be permitted to decide which
orders they will obey, and when they will obey them.”95 “If it is an order that requires action by
the institution, and the inmate cannot be persuaded to obey the order, some means must be used
to compel compliance, such as a chemical agent or physical force.”96 Plaintiff does not rebut
Deputy Rodriguez’s evidence that there was a justification for the use of some force. Thus, the
summary judgment record demonstrates that plaintiff’s conduct “set the stage for the use of
92
Docket no. 35-1 at 1. Plaintiff’s additional summary judgment evidence, an affidavit of
fellow inmate Hakeem Hampton, also fails to rebut that Deputy Rodriguez ordered the inmates to
return to their cells. Docket no. 38-2.
93
See Rooks v. Does, No. 4:14-CV-149-DPM-JTK, 2015 WL 3954225, at *4 (E.D. Ark.
June 29, 2015), appeal dismissed (Nov. 17, 2015) (plaintiff did not deny that he refused to obey
Defendant’s numerous verbal commands to allow him to remove the cuffs. Plaintiff provided no
specific facts or evidence to justify his refusal, and even assuming his version of the facts as true
(that he did not lunge at Defendant Ragland), the Court finds Ragland’s use of force (single burst
of taser) to be more than reasonable, given all the circumstances).
94
Brown v. Gusman, No. 15-1491-DEK, 2015 WL 6827260, *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2015).
95
Kitt v. Bailey, 2015 WL 3909116,*6 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2015) (quoting Soto v.
Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1267 (7th Cir. 1984)).
96
Id.
19
force.”97
Against this backdrop, the summary judgment record shows the parties dispute facts
relevant to an assessment of the relationship between the need for the application of force and the
amount of force used, as well as the extent of plaintiff’s injury. Deputy Rodriguez testifies in his
affidavit that, after the order was given to return to his cell, plaintiff “attempted to exit the cell,”
“position[ed] his arm and leg between the door and door frame,” and “attempted to push the cell
door open.”98 Deputy Rodriguez further testifies he “held the door in position and put my foot
against the door to prevent Mr. Brown from opening the door further.”99 Then, plaintiff removed
his arm and leg and Deputy Rodriguez “shut the door and it locked automatically. Mr. Brown
did not cry out in pain, tell me he was injured or give me any other indication that he was
injured.”100 In contrast, Brown testifies in his sworn complaint that Deputy Rodriguez “slammed
the cell door on the left side of my body (repeatedly)” and “assaulted me using ‘excessive force’
for about twenty five (25) to thirty (30) seconds by backing up then lunging forward, ramming
the cell door with the left side of his body while my body (was not) clear of the cell door.”101 As
97
Calhoun v. Wyatt, No. 6:11CV4, 2013 WL 1882367, *6 (E.D. Tex. 2013).
98
Docket no. 35-1 at 1.
99
Id.
100
Id. at 2.
101
Docket no. 1 at 4. Plaintiff’s depiction of the incident varies. In his March 30, 2015
grievance, attached as an exhibit to his complaint, plaintiff states Deputy Rodriguez “slamm[ed]
the cell door on my left arm and left leg, then placed all of his weight against the door so that my
left arm and left leg remained pinned.” Id. at 7. According to plaintiff’s medical records, on
March 31, 2015, plaintiff stated, “he was hurt last night by the door his left arm and leg were
pinned on the door by an officer applying force to door squeezing his two left extremities.”
Docket no. 8-1 at 2. In neither place, is there a reference to plaintiff complaining of repeated
20
a result of defendant’s use of force, plaintiff testifies he suffered “a serious knee injury and
bruises and lacerations on my left arm.”102
Although excessive force claims are to be decided “based on the nature of the force rather
than the extent of the injury,”103 such that an inmate who was “gratuitously beaten by guards does
not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to
escape without serious injury,”104 here Deputy Rodriguez denies intentionally and knowingly
applying any force to injure plaintiff, denies even knowing plaintiff claimed injury at the time of
the occurrence,105 and the summary judgment record as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, a
factor properly considered under Kinglsey/Hudson, shows plaintiff’s injuries were de minimis.
Notwithstanding the guidance in Brown v. Lynch—“as long as a plaintiff has suffered
‘some injury,’ even relatively insignificant injuries and purely psychological injuries will prove
cognizable when resulting from an officer’s unreasonably excessive force”106—the Fifth Circuit
has not disallowed entry of summary judgment based on de minimis injuries when Courts have
found there is no genuine issue of material fact that injuries are de minimis “in the context of the
force used.”107 There are numerous cases in which the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the entry of
slamming or lunging.
102
Id. at 4.
103
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 35-36, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1177 (2010).
104
559 U. S. at 36-38, 130 S. Ct. at 1178-79.
105
Docket no. 35-1 at 2.
106
524 Fed. App’x. 69,79 (5th Cir. 2013).
107
Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted) (finding
plaintiff’s injury “must be more than a de minimis injury and must be evaluated in the context in
21
summary judgment based on a summary judgment record showing only a de minimis injury.108
For example, as recently as February 6, 2016 (and after Kinglsey), in Brooks v. City of West
Point, Miss., the Fifth Circuit held that “[b]ecause Brooks has not proffered evidence that the
officers caused him more than a de minimis injury, the district court did not err in granting
summary judgment on his excessive force claim” based the summary judgment record that
showed Brooks “suffered abrasions to his hands and knees, some pain in his back and neck, and
unspecified problems with his asthma,” adding that “[w]e have held injuries of this type to be de
which the force was deployed” and officer handcuffing the plaintiff “too tightly, causing her right
wrist to swell,” without more, did not amount to excessive force).
108
See Galada v. Payne, 421 Fed.App’x. 460, 462 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming summary
judgment and holding “[a]lthough a showing of ‘significant injury’ is not necessary, we require
that the plaintiff have suffered at least some form of injury that is more than de minimis”); Lee v.
Wilson, 237 Fed.App’x. 965, 966 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirming summary judgment that found
prisoner’s injury to be de minimis, consisting of a “busted lip” in the context of officer’s
“reasonable attempt to maintain order” in response to prisoner’s complaints); Wilson v. Taylor,
100 Fed.App’x. 282, 283 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment
on the basis of qualified immunity because prisoner “failed to submit summary judgment
evidence showing that he has suffered a more than de minimis physical injury” after being “body
slammed onto a concrete floor and punched in the face” by an officer who was over seven feet
tall and weighed more than 300 pounds); Bradshaw v. Unknown Lieutenant, 48 Fed.App’x. 106
(5th Cir. 2002) (affirming district court’s dismissal of prisoner’s excessive force claim when
alleged injuries consisting of “burning eyes and skin for approximately 24 hours, twitching of his
eyes, blurred vision, irritation of his nose and throat, blistering of his skin, rapid heartbeat,
mental anguish, shock and fear” were de minimis); Potts v. Hill, 182 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 1999)
(affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment because plaintiff’s injury of a
“nonbleeding cut on the inside” of prisoner’s lip that made “his mouth too sore to wear his
dentures for three weeks,” was not the “kind of injury that warranted Eighth Amendment
protection”); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for excessive force where injury consisting of “a sore, bruised ear
lasting for three days” was de minimis); Young v. Saint, No. 92-8420, 1993 WL 117991, at *3
(5th Cir. Mar. 31,1993) (affirming order dismissing complaint where injuries consisting of “an
undetermined amount of blood and [] two small ‘scratches’” were de minimis).
22
minimis.109
Deputy Rodriguez’s summary judgment evidence includes an affidavit from Darryl B.
Thomas, M.D., a board certified orthopedic surgeon, who reviewed plaintiff’s medical treatment
records relating to the March 30, 2015 incident.110 Brown was seen for medical evaluation on
March 31, 2015—less than 24 hours after the incident.111 The treatment notes reflect that Brown
stated he “was hurt last night by the door his left arm and leg were pinned on the door by an
officer applying force to the door squeezing his two left extremities.”112 Plaintiff complained of
pain to his left elbow and left knee, but the treatment notes state “no bruising seen on left elbow
and arm, on the left forearm [sic] there is two approximately 8 cm long scratch like lines, no
edema noted.”113 The medical records do not indicate any medication was prescribed to plaintiff
on March 31, 2015.114 Dr. Thomas testifies that “the only objective evidence of an injury is at the
left upper extremity given the very mild lacerations present,”115 “[t]here is no objective evidence
of an injury to the left knee,”116 and after the incident Brown showed evidence only of “a
109
No. 14-60357, 2016 WL 556360, *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2016) (citations omitted).
110
Docket no. 35-2.
111
Docket no. 8-1 at 2.
112
Id.
113
Id.
114
Plaintiff states after the examination, the nurse “gave me an ice pack for my knee and
released me.” Docket no. 1 at 5. There is no reference in plaintiff’s medical treatment records to
plaintiff receiving an ice pack—or any other treatment—on March 31, 2015.
115
Docket no. 35-2 at 3.
116
Id. Dr. Thomas opines “[a]ny subjective complaints of pain in this region are
consistent with a prior injury.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff confirms he suffered from a prior knee injury,
23
contusion and a very mild laceration injury to the upper left extremity as a result of the described
mechanism of injury.”117
The Court cannot say that the objective medical evidence of plaintiff’s injury within 24
hours of the incident—“two approximately 8 cm long scratch like lines” on plaintiff’s left arm
with no bleeding, bruising or swelling noted on plaintiff’s left arm or left leg—equates to more
than a de minimis injury.118 Although de minimis injury does not necessarily equate to the de
minimis level of force,119 here plaintiff provides no summary judgment evidence sufficient to
arguing after the incident he “has been in pain result[ing] from defendant’s assault using
excessive force also the re-injuring plaintiff’s knee which plaintiff suffered in an auto accident in
May of 2014.” Docket no. 38 at 3 (emphasis added). Dr. Thomas states the “radiographs of the
left knee and elbow were negative for any evidence of trauma.” Docket no. 35-2 at 2. Dr.
Thomas opines plaintiff’s “prognosis is excellent” and “[t]here would be no expected long term
issues from a contusion injury.” Docket no. 35-2 at 3.
117
Docket no. 35-2 at 2.
118
Dr. Thomas also discusses post-event medical attention of Brown. Plaintiff was seen
for evaluation on April 3, 2015 because plaintiff complained of tenderness to the left elbow and
left knee when palpated. Docket no. 9-1 at 3-4. Nothing unusual was noted in the appearance of
either limb and the left elbow specifically “without swelling.” Docket no. 35-2 at 2. Plaintiff
was prescribed Indomethacin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory). Id. Plaintiff was seen next on
April 7, 2015, when x-rays were taken of plaintiff’s left elbow (“no fracture or dislocation”) and
left knee (“no fracture or dislocation;” “small joint effusion”) and plaintiff was prescribed
Baclofen (muscle relaxer), Ibuprofen, and directed to “[a]llow warm shower water to run to all
affected joints.” Docket no. 9-1 at 5. Dr. Thomas directly testifies “[t]he radiographs of the left
knee and elbow were negative for any evidence of trauma.” Docket no. 35-2 at 2. There is no
summary judgment evidence that relates plaintiff’s post-March 31, 2015 complaints to treatment
providers to the March 30 incident other than plaintiff’s implicit contention they were.
Nevertheless, even if the medical complaints for which plaintiff received treatment after March
31 and through April 7, 2015 as reflected in the medical records were to be considered related to
the March 30 use of force, plaintiff’s injuries remain de minimis.
119
The extent of the injury may “provide some indication of the amount of force
applied,” may “suggest whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary,”
and “not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.”
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (citations omitted). That the
24
raise a genuine issue of fact to show why, within 24 hours of the incident, there was not any
evidence in his medical treatment records of injuries other than “two approximately 8 cm long
scratch like lines” on plaintiff’s left arm (with no bleeding, bruising or swelling noted on
plaintiff’s left arm or left leg) if the force used against him was not also de minimis. Plaintiff has
not presented competent summary judgment evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of
material that his injuries were other than de minimis.120 No reasonable juror could conclude other
than that Brown’s injuries were de minimis. No reasonable juror could conclude other than that
the force purposefully and knowingly used against Brown by Deputy Rodriguez was other than
de minimis.121
evidence shows plaintiff’s injuries were de minimis supports the finding the force used was not
excessive.
120
See cases cited in notes 107-109, above.
121
With respect to the remaining Hudson/Kinglsey factors, Deputy Rodriguez offers no
argument as to any efforts to temper the severity of the force used, other than characterizing the
entire incident as an “accident.” The Court may consider the nature of the injury to “indicate that
the response was tempered to some extent.” Thompson v. Beasely, 309 F.R.D. 236, 249 (N.D.
Miss. 2015) (citations omitted). This factor does not weigh in favor of finding that Deputy
Rodriguez’s use of force was unreasonable. Only Deputy Rodriguez has presented summary
judgment evidence related to the severity of the security problem at issue and the threat
reasonably perceived by the officers. Deputy Rodriguez testified he ordered inmates to “rack up
so I could count the meal trays” because “[a]ll trays, sporks and inmates must be accounted for at
meal times because the trays and sporks could be fashioned into weapons.” Docket no. 35-1 at 1.
To force plaintiff’s compliance with Deputy Rodriguez’s lawful order made pursuant to BCADC
security policy, Deputy Rodriguez responded to plaintiff’s defiant exiting of his cell by holding
“the door in position” and“prevent[ing] Mr. Brown from opening the door further.” Id. at 2.
“Inmates do not have the right to cause disturbances creating a security problem nor to comply
with orders from jail officials.” Calhoun, 2013 WL 1882367, at *6. “[M]aintaining institutional
security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require
limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and
pretrial detainees.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878 (1979). Maintaining
institutional security required Deputy Rodriguez to limit plaintiff’s ability to leave his cell. See
Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 629 (5th Cir. 2012) (arrestee or suspect who refuses to
25
In sum, Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive use of
force claim is granted and plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
2.
Denial of Medical Care
Deputy Rodriguez moves for summary judgment on plaintiff’s denial of medical care
claim arguing he was “not aware that Plaintiff was in need of or requested medical care on the
date of the incident” and “even if he was aware, medical care for a minor injury is not
actionable.”122 Plaintiff does not present any specific rebuttal argument or evidence.123
To state a claim for the denial of medical care, as a pretrial detainee, plaintiff must show
that Deputy Rodriguez acted “with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious medical
harm and resulting injuries.”124 In his affidavit, Officer Rodriguez states plaintiff “never
informed me that he was injured or requested medical care prior to the end of my shift,” “never
requested a sick call slip from me or submitted a sick call slip to me at any time relevant to his
lawsuit,” and “I did not observe any behavior from Mr. Brown that indicated he was injured.”125
In rebuttal, plaintiff states in his affidavit that he “requested medical care” and “ask[ed] the
comply with officers’ commands poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers such that
use of force was not clearly excessive); Galvan v. City of San Antonio, 435 Fed. App’x. 309, 311
(5th Cir. 2010) (explaining the use of force was reasonable “when officers reacted with measured
and ascending responses” to a plaintiff’s noncompliance).
122
Docket no. 35 at 5.
123
See docket no. 38.
124
Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 625-626 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Deliberate
indifference requires the official have subjective knowledge of the risk of harm. [] Mere
negligence or a failure to act is not enough. The officer must have the subjective intent to cause
harm.”)
125
Docket no. 35-1 at 2.
26
officer to call in a code one (which is a medical emergency code for BCADC),” which Deputy
Rodriguez refused.126
Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s denial of medical care
claim is granted because “viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], no
reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference,” that is, Deputy Rodriguez had “subjective
knowledge of the risk of harm” and “subjective intent to cause harm”127 when plaintiff’s only
reported injuries on March 31, 2015—less than 24 hours after the incident—were “two
approximately 8 cm long scratch like lines,” with no bleeding, bruising, or swelling noted.128
Deputy Rodriguez is also entitled to an entry of summary judgment because plaintiff has not
presented sufficient summary judgment to show Deputy Rodriguez “intentionally delayed”
plaintiff’s care to cause harm. Accordingly, Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment
as to plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim is granted and plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with
prejudice.
3.
Qualified Immunity
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of material fact to
show that Deputy Rodriguez’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly
established law at the time of the incident.129 Accordingly, Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for
summary judgment is granted and plaintiff’s claims against Deputy Rodriguez for excessive use
126
Docket no. 38-1 at 2.
127
See Mace, 333 F.3d at 625-26.
128
Docket no. 8-1 at 2.
129
See Michalik, 422 F.3d at 257-58.
27
of force and denial of medical care are dismissed with prejudiced.
B.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, also considered as plaintiff’s response to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law on each of
the claims at issue in Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment.130 The Court has fully
considered plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as an independent motion for summary
judgment and as a response to Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has
also filed a corrected motion for summary judgment, which is addressed below. For the reasons
that Deputy Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
C.
Other Motions, Requests for Relief, and Objections
In addition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, the parties have sought relief in other submissions. This portion of the
Memorandum Decision and Order briefly addresses those submissions.
1.
plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint
On February 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to file an amended complaint in which
plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the BCADC and Bexar County Sheriff Pamerleau.131
Plaintiff’s motion acknowledges that in 2015 he filed documents showing he “no longer wished
to pursue a claim against BCADC,” but states he “now [can] allege the requisite custom practice
and policy as a basis for liability against BCADC and Sheriff Pamerleau.”132 Plaintiff does not
130
Docket no. 38 at 4.
131
Docket no. 43.
132
Id. at 2.
28
attach a copy of his proposed amended complaint to his motion to amend, in violation of the
Local Court Rule CV-7(b),133 nor does his motion specify the alleged “custom, practice, and
policy” at issue or set out good cause to support reopening the September 21, 2015 deadline to
file a motion for leave to amend or add parties.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs pretrial conferences,
scheduling, and management, applies when a request to file an amended complaint is made after
the relevant scheduling order deadline has expired.134 Rule 16(b) provides, in part, that a
scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the
district judge[.]”135 The “good cause” standard requires the “party seeking relief to show that the
deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.”136
The absence of prejudice to the nonmovant or the ability to address prejudice through a further
continuance in the dispositive motion deadline or trial are generally insufficient to demonstrate
“good cause.”137
Plaintiff has not satisfied the “good cause” standard to re-open an expired scheduling
133
Local Court Rule CV-7(b) states, in part: “When a motion for leave to file a pleading,
motion, or other submission is required, an executed copy of the proposed pleading, motion or
other submission shall be filed as an exhibit to the motion for leave.”
134
Hawthorne Land Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 431 F.3d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 549 U.S.811, 127 S.Ct. 48 (2006); S&W Enter., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Al.,
NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
135
FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b).
136
S&W Enter., 315 F.3d at 536 (citation omitted).
137
Bakner v. Xerox Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, No. SA-98-CA-0230-OG,
2000 WL 33348191, at * 14 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2000).
29
order deadline and plaintiff’s motion can be denied on that ground alone. Further, plaintiff has
not filed and served a copy of his proposed amended pleading as an attachment to his motion to
amend, another independent ground to deny plaintiff’s motion to amend.
With respect to the merits of plaintiff’s proposed amendment—to the extent they can be
ascertained from plaintiff’s motion to amend and attachments—the Fifth Circuit has explained
that “[o]nly upon movant’s demonstration of good cause to modify the scheduling order will the
more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) apply to the district court’s decision to grant or deny
leave.”138 Rule 15(a)(1) provides, in sum, that a “party may amend its pleading once as a matter
of course within” 21 days after serving it or, “if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service
of a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), motion, whichever is earlier.”139 Rule 15(a)(2) addresses all other
amendments.140 Although Rule 15(a)(2) provides that leave shall be freely given “when justice
so requires,”141 leave is not automatic.142 Whether to grant leave “lies within the sound discretion
138
Hawthorne Land Co., 431 F.3d at 227 (quoting S&W Enter., 315 F.3d at 536).
139
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(1)(A), (B). The Advisory Committee Notes state that the 21-day
periods are not cumulative. For example, “if a responsive pleading is served after one of the
designated motions is served, there is no new 21-day period.” Advisory Committee Notes on
FED. R. CIV. P. 15 (2009 Amendments).
140
Rule 15(a)(2) provides:
In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
141
FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
142
In re Southmark Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1057,
117 S.Ct. 686 (1997). See Bakner, 2000 WL 33348191, at * 14 (citing Geiserman v. McDonald,
893 F.32d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1990)).
30
of the district court.”143 “In exercising its discretion, the Court may consider such factors as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and
futility of the amendment.”144
Here, the time for plaintiff to amend as a matter of course has long since expired.
Further, the proposed amendment would appear to be futile as BCADC is not a jural entity and
plaintiff’s motion to amend and its attachments do not identify facts that to show the Sheriff can
be held liable, as a supervisor, for plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff agrees he reported the alleged
assault to a supervisor of defendant, an investigation was conducted, and plaintiff did receive
medical attention. That plaintiff is dissatisfied with the grievance process does not automatically
state a claim for a civil rights violation based on an unspecified deficient grievance custom,
practice, or procedure. In sum, plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint145 is denied.
2.
defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s summary judgment evidence
On January 14, 2016, defendant filed objections to certain purported evidence included in
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment filed December 22, 2015.146 In sum, defendant
objected to considering unsworn submissions as competent summary judgment evidence,
143
Bakner, 2000 WL 33348191, at * 14 (citing Louisiana v. Litton Mortg. Co., 50 F.3d
1298, 1302-03 (5th Cir. 1995)).
144
Id. (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962); Southmark
Corp., 88 F.3d 314-15).
145
Docket no. 43.
146
Docket no. 41.
31
evidence not in the record before the Court, and hearsay.147 Defendant also objected to the
consideration of any evidence filed by plaintiff after the expiration of the December 18, 2015
deadline to file dispositive motions.148 Plaintiff responded to the objection on February 5,
2016.149
The Court has carefully reviewed each side’s submissions in connection with the
preparation of this Memorandum Decision and Order. The Court has considered only correctly
competent summary judgment evidence that has been correctly authenticated and to the extent it
is not hearsay. Specifically, with respect to whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law on plaintiff’s claims, the Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff’s arguments, but has
not considered plaintiff’s arguments regarding the occurrences giving rise to plaintiff’s claims as
if it were competent, admissible summary judgment evidence unless the matter has been
presented in a sworn submission and is otherwise admissible. Otherwise, as plaintiff’s December
22, 2015 motion for summary judgment appears to serve also as plaintiff’s response to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, any competent summary judgment evidence
submitted with plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has not been discounted simply because
plaintiff’s December 22, 2015 motion for summary judgment was untimely filed. In sum, to the
extent defendant’s January 14, 2016 objections ask the Court not to consider as competent
summary judgment evidence the unsworn submissions, hearsay, or otherwise objectionable
evidence submitted by plaintiff with plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the objections are
147
Id. at 1-3.
148
Id. at 1.
149
Docket no. 42.
32
sustained.
3.
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery requests
On March 15, 2016, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s first request for
production of documents and plaintiff’s request for admissions served on defendant Rodriguez
and non-party, BCADC on March 14, 2016.150 Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order,
discovery expired on December 4, 2015. Yet, plaintiff’s discovery requests at issue were dated
by plaintiff on March 9, 2016 and not received by defendant and BCADC until March 14, 2016.
Thus, defendant’s motion to strike the discovery requests is granted. As a result of granting
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery requests, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery requests151 is denied as moot.
4.
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s corrected motion for summary
judgment
On March 29, 2016, defendant moved to strike plaintiff’s corrected motion for summary
judgment filed on March 24, 2016.152 Plaintiff’s “corrected” motion for summary judgment does
not clearly state how the corrected motion differs from the motion for summary judgment
plaintiff filed on December 22, 2015.153 Plaintiff does not explain why he could not have filed
his corrections in a more timely fashion. Plaintiff does not attach any new affidavits to the
“corrected” motion, but simply refers to two exhibits he attached to his December 22, 2015
150
Docket no. 46.
151
Docket no. 50.
152
Docket no. 49.
153
Docket no. 48.
33
motion for summary judgment. In sum, defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s corrected motion
for summary judgment is granted and the Court strikes plaintiff’s March 24, 2016 corrected
motion for summary judgment on the ground it was filed approximately three months after the
December 22, 2015 deadline to file dispositive motions and plaintiff has not demonstrated “good
cause” to reopen the expired deadline to file a new dispositive motion.154 Nevertheless, as
reflected in this ruling, even if the arguments and evidence addressed in plaintiff’s “corrected”
motion are considered, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted and
plaintiff’s cross-motions for summary judgment should be denied.
5.
other requests
Any requests for relief made by any party that are not expressly granted in this
Memorandum Decision and Order are denied.
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
•
defendant’s motion for summary judgment155 is GRANTED and plaintiff’s
§ 1983 claims alleging excessive force and denial of medical care are dismissed
with prejudice;
•
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment156 is DENIED;
154
Plaintiff’s December 22, 2015 motion for summary judgment was also filed after the
December 18, 2015 deadline to file dispositive motions, but the Court has not entered an order to
strike the motion because the certificate of service included in the motion states plaintiff
provided it for mailing on December 15, 2015, before the expiration of the dispositive motions
deadline. Docket no. 38-2 at 3. It is also noted that defendant did not move to strike plaintiff’s
December 22 motion for summary judgment (only objected to the evidence submitted with the
December 22 motion), but did move to strike plaintiff’s March 24 “corrected” motion.
155
Docket no. 35.
156
Docket no. 38.
34
•
plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint157 is DENIED for the reason that plaintiff
has not demonstrated “good cause” to re-open the expired scheduling order
deadline;
•
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery requests158 is GRANTED and
plaintiff’s discovery requests159 are stricken;
•
defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s corrected motion for summary judgment160
is GRANTED and plaintiff’s corrected motion for summary judgment161 is
stricken;
•
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s discovery
requests162 is DENIED as moot; and
•
any other motions or requests for relief requested and not expressly granted are
DENIED.
The District Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of defendants on each of plaintiff’s
claims, each side to bear its own costs.
ORDERED, SIGNED and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2016.
______________________________________
PAMELA A. MATHY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
157
Docket no. 43.
158
Docket no. 46.
159
Docket no. 47.
160
Docket no. 49.
161
Docket no. 48.
162
Docket no. 50.
35
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?