Raynor v. Pugh

• Decision Date: 17 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–7746.,14–7746.
• Citation: 817 F.3d 123
• Parties: James Herman RAYNOR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. G. PUGH, Housing Unit # 1 Manager, Defendant–Appellee, and Harold W. Clark, Director of Department of Corrections; Marie Vargo, Ms., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

817 F.3d 123

James Herman RAYNOR, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v. G. PUGH, Housing Unit # 1 Manager, Defendant–Appellee,andHarold W. Clark, Director of Department of Corrections; Marie Vargo, Ms., Defendants.

No. 14–7746.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Dec. 8, 2015.

Decided: March 17, 2016.

ARGUED:Brian David Schmalzbach, McGuirewoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Trevor Stephen Cox, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:John D. Adams, Katherine Mims Crocker, McGuirewoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Cynthia E. Hudson, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Linda L. Bryant, Deputy Attorney General, Public Safety & Enforcement, Richard C. Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, J. Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Stuart A. Raphael, Solicitor General of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ

wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING joined. Judge KEENAN wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ

, Circuit Judge:

James Herman Raynor, an inmate at a Virginia correctional facility, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)

, alleging that a prison official violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect Raynor from an attack by another inmate. The district court granted the official's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Raynor, an inmate at Sussex II State Prison, suffers from medical ailments, including seizures, blackouts, "blood issues," "heart issues," and "breath[ing] issues." In November 2012, Raynor, who was housed with inmate K. Mullins, asked prison officials to move him to a different cell with a "caretaker" inmate who had volunteered to assist him with his health conditions. On January 10, 2013, Raynor renewed his request with G. Pugh, the Prison Housing Manager for Raynor's unit. That day, Pugh informed Mullins that he, instead of Raynor, would have to relocate to a different cell.

According to Raynor, Mullins then threatened Raynor in front of Pugh, saying, "it's on," that they were both "going to seg[regated housing]," and that he "would physically assault [Raynor]." Raynor alleges that, in response, Pugh stated that he did not care what Mullins did and ordered both men back into their cell. Soon after, Mullins smashed Raynor's television and punched him in the face multiple times, knocking him to the ground. Raynor alleges that Pugh watched the entire assault and did not call for assistance or take any action until after the attack had ended. Raynor also alleges that he sustained a significant injury from the assault. In addition to temporary facial injuries and bruising, when Mullins knocked him to the ground, the impact assertedly damaged his spine and tailbone. As a result of that spinal injury, he alleges that he now suffers constant and severe pain, numbness, and loss of control of his legs, and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

After exhausting his administrative remedies, Raynor filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Pugh.¹ Raynor alleges, and realleges in an amended complaint, that Pugh's deliberate indifference to Raynor's safety, and the resulting injuries, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

As evidence of Pugh's deliberate indifference, Raynor submitted a verified complaint and a corroborating affidavit from another inmate, who had witnessed the assault. To support his claim of serious injury, Raynor offered copies of several requests for medical attention for severe spinal pain, numbness, and uncontrollable falling after January 10th, some of which attribute these issues to the assault. Raynor also submitted six doctors' reports describing spinal x-rays

before and after the assault, which he maintains describe damage to a different section of his spine post-assault than had already been injured. In an effort to further substantiate his claim, Raynor moved for production of the following materials from the prison: the security video of the incident, all prison reports related to the assault, any prison policies or procedures detailing staff responsibility for inmate safety, and any documents from the prison's investigation of the incident.

Although Pugh does not dispute that Mullins attacked Raynor, he disputes essentially every other fact alleged by Raynor. According to Pugh, Mullins made no threatening comments in Pugh's presence before the assault, and because the two inmates had gotten along in the past, he had no reason to anticipate one would attack the other. Pugh contends that he was in a different part of the housing unit during the alleged assault and was only "later informed" of an "altercation." Pugh also maintains that, even if he had been present during an attack, prison policy would have prevented him from physically intervening without additional guards. He maintains that Raynor suffered only minor facial abrasions, as reflected in the "mild abrasions" noted in the medical report from the day of the assault. Pugh argues that Raynor suffered ongoing spinal problems due to a 2005 accident, so that to the extent Raynor does currently suffer from chronic back pain, that pain is not attributable to the asserted assault. Finally, Pugh points to the lack of any written grievances or medical forms from Raynor complaining of back pain before August 2013, seven months after the assault.

Pugh moved for summary judgment, arguing that "Raynor did not suffer a serious or significant physical injury for which Pugh would be liable under the Eighth Amendment," that "Pugh did not have a sufficiently culpable state of mind," and that Pugh was entitled to qualified immunity. On the same day, Pugh also moved for a protective order to stay discovery based on his qualified immunity defense. Raynor opposed both motions, reasserted his discovery requests, and filed a motion for an examination by a back specialist.

The district court denied Raynor's motions and granted Pugh's discovery protective order without reaching the merits of the qualified immunity defense. Seven months later, still without resolving the issue of Pugh's asserted immunity from suit or ordering any discovery, the district court granted Pugh summary judgment. The court acknowledged that the parties "dispute[d]" both "defendant's motivation in not breaking up the fight between plaintiff and Mullins" and whether Raynor "suffered a severe injury to his spinal cord

." However, it concluded that these disputes were not "genuine," due to an asserted lack of evidentiary support for Raynor's claims. Raynor timely noted this appeal.

II.

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" imposes certain basic duties on prison officials. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)

. These include maintaining humane conditions of confinement, including the provision of adequate medical care and, relevant to this case, "reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, corrections officers have "a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners," for "[b]eing violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Id. at 832, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

However, "not every injury suffered by a prisoner at the hands of another translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety." Makdessi v. Fields, 789 F.3d 126, 133 (4th Cir.2015)

(internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test, consisting of both an objective and a subjective inquiry, for liability to attach.

First, the inmate "must establish a serious deprivation of his rights in the form of a serious or significant physical or emotional injury," or a substantial risk thereof. Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340, 346–47 (4th Cir.2014)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970. This objective inquiry "requires a court to assess whether society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993).

Second, an inmate must show that the prison official had a "sufficiently culpable state of mind," which, in this context, consists of "deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970

(internal quotation marks omitted). This subjective inquiry requires "evidence suggesting that the prison official had actual knowledge of an excessive risk to the plaintiff's safety." Danser, 772 F.3d at 347. The defendant must "be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (emphasis added). An inmate can, however, prove an official's actual knowledge of a substantial risk "in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence." Id. at 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970. In other words, "a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious." Id.

However, "prison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk." Id. at 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970

. In failure-to-protect cases, "prison guards have no constitutional duty to intervene in the armed...