645 Fed.Appx. 149 (3rd Cir. 2016), 14-3998, Hammonds v. Headman
|Citation:||645 Fed.Appx. 149|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||RICHARD ALLEN HAMMONDS, Appellant v. C.O. JOHN HEADMAN; C.O. THOMAS HARRISON; SERGEANT DONALD BUCK, aka BUCC; SERGEANT TAIT LONG; LT. MRARCHI; SERGEANT CHRISTOPHER WIEDOW; SERGEANT KALCE|
|Attorney:||RICHARD A. HAMMONDS (#JD-8826), Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Camp Hill, PA. For JOHN HEADMAN, C.O., DONALD BUCK, Sergeant aka BUCC, TAIT LONG, Sergeant, CHRISTOPHER WIEDOW, Sergeant, KALCE, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees: Lindsey A. Bierzonski, Esq., Jessica S. Davis, Esq., Sean A. Kirkpatric...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 01, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted April 1, 2016 Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-11-cv-01666). District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion.
RICHARD A. HAMMONDS (#JD-8826), Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Camp Hill, PA.
For JOHN HEADMAN, C.O., DONALD BUCK, Sergeant aka BUCC, TAIT LONG, Sergeant, CHRISTOPHER WIEDOW, Sergeant, KALCE, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees: Lindsey A. Bierzonski, Esq., Jessica S. Davis, Esq., Sean A. Kirkpatrick, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA.
For THOMAS HARRISON, C.O., MRARCHI, Lt., Defendants - Appellees: Jessica S. Davis, Esq., Sean A. Kirkpatrick, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA.
Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
Richard A. Hammonds, a Pennsylvania inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
As we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our conclusions. In 2011, Hammonds filed a complaint against Department of Corrections (DOC) employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and permitted Hammonds to file an amended complaint. Hammonds' first amended complaint contained numerous claims, including an allegation that DOC employees used excessive force after discovering that he had escaped from his cell in the restricted housing unit (RHU). According to Hammonds, the defendants repeatedly punched him in the face, squeezed handcuffs around his wrists, and choked him with a " spit mask." Hammonds was then taken to the RHU dayroom, where he was allegedly assaulted again. The initial altercation was recorded by security cameras, but the incident in the RHU dayroom was not recorded because, pursuant to prison policy, a camera in that area is turned on only during prisoner intakes.
The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended dismissing all but the excessive force claim. Meanwhile, Hammonds moved for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP