Riley v. Dorton

• Decision Date: 16 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-7120,94-7120
• Citation: 93 F.3d 113
• Parties: Charles Richard RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. DORTON, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 113

93 F.3d 113

Charles Richard RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James M. DORTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 9, 1996.

Decided Aug. 16, 1996.

Opinion Vacated on Oct. 10, 1996.

There are instances when police officers clearly overstep their bounds and must be brought to account. This is not one. There are cases, on the other hand, when an action for damages against police officers will seriously interfere with the integrity of the law enforcement function. This is such a case. The district court recognized as much, finding appropriately that under our recent en banc decision in Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995), the sheer absence of evidence of any real injury required the entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff. I would affirm its judgment.

I.

The rules of summary judgment do not call for the degree of credulity embodied in the majority opinion, lest Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 forfeit entirely its gatekeeping function. This case is made for summary judgment. The record simply fails to bear out appellant Riley's allegation that he suffered any injury as a consequence of his interrogation. In fact, the opposite conclusion emerges--that Riley at one time or another has perceived injury from every aspect of his post-arrest detention except his interrogation. In no sense, then, can he be said to have carried his burden of demonstrating a constitutional violation.

Appellant, by any account, is an incessant complainer; the record is replete with evidence of his unbridled resolve to report any physical or psychological discomfort, no matter how trifling, to medical personnel. In the months following his arrest, he requested medical attention for a stream of physical ailments, including a hangnail, an ingrown toenail, a runny nose, a chill, dizzy spells, a "knot" in his groin, broken skin between his toes, and soreness in his back, neck, ear, throat, and left thumb. He complained that he needed to soak his foot after losing a toenail, that his cellmate kept him awake, and that his back pain prevented him from relinquishing his bottom bunk to a fellow inmate who had "only" suffered a leg injury. He even sought medical authorization to receive boxer underwear instead of briefs because of a mole on his thigh (which medical staff, after examination, deemed unaffected by his choice of undergarments).

Appellant's list of psychological difficulties is no less extensive. In his dozens of mental health sessions, he complained of being depressed for several years and of having crying spells once or twice a day. He expressed fear of harassment by other inmates and found it difficult to deal with their teasing and taunting. He frequently reported being discouraged by the course of his legal defense, the potential sentence he faced, the societal reaction to his offenses, and the possible outcome of his eventual trial. He grew angry after hearing the testimony of certain witnesses, and he worried about conflicts between his girlfriend and his family. More than once, he related suicidal urges. His many emotional complaints and psychological troubles led examiners to report that "Mr. Riley can turn on tears at will," and to suggest that he "rather enjoys making manipulative gestures and threats to get attention," an assessment "he did not deny."

Given all of this, one would expect Riley to have complained at least once about any physical or psychological discomfort suffered as a result of his interrogation. But the Health Services Administrator at Henrico County Jail, where appellant was detained "found no record of any complaints by Mr. Riley to either medical or mental health staff of injury to, or discomfort in, [his] nose or shoulders which relates to his allegations." She also "found no record of any concerns related to the alleged threats" by Detective Dorton among Riley's scores of mental health sessions. Riley's own testimony, in fact, is that he never specifically complained of any injury from the incidents he now identifies in this suit (the handcuffing, the threats, the slap to his face, and the pen in his nose). In short, Riley has compiled a singular record as a chronic, uninhibited complainer, yet he never once complained about the interrogation which he now asserts caused him substantial injury.

The summary judgment rule was developed precisely to deal with claims arising in such a context. Other than appellant's own bald allegations, the record contains no evidence indicating that he suffered any injury of any sort from the interrogation. If anything, Riley's penchant for bringing the slightest physical or psychological discomfort to the attention of medical staff, and the conspicuous absence of any such complaints regarding the interrogation, suggests that any injury he now asserts could not possibly have been caused by Detective Dorton's actions during the interrogation. Since appellant has failed to come forward with sufficient evidence of an essential element of his claim, summary judgment was properly entered against him. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277, 280-81 (8th Cir.1994) (requiring entry of summary judgment in excessive force action where no evidence connected injury to incident complained of).

Even assuming that Riley did suffer some form of physical or psychological injury from the interrogation, the injury was unquestionably de minimis, and thus insufficient under Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d at 1259, to give rise to an excessive force action. By his own account, any physical contact lasted less than thirty seconds and caused him primarily "mental" discomfort. And that he did not seek treatment or counseling after the interrogation indicates that, even by his own extreme standards, any psychological discomfort was negligible. Riley's constitutional claim, as a result, should be barred by Norman, which holds that "an excessive force claim generally should not lie where any injury sustained by the plaintiff is de minimis." Id. at 1263. ¹

Norman is not, as the majority contends, limited to claims of excessive force brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. While the decision undoubtedly involved an Eighth Amendment claim, and its language thus refers primarily to that provision, I read its requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate more than de minimis injury to apply to all excessive force actions. Other courts have applied a de minimis standard to excessive force actions outside of the Eighth Amendment, including claims--like Riley's--asserted by pretrial detainees under the due process clause. See Jackson v. Culbertson, 984 F.2d 699 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam). The Supreme Court, moreover, has supported such a requirement in due process cases, commenting that while "the state cannot hold and physically punish an individual except in accordance with due process of law," "[t]here is, of course, a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1414, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977).

Any suggestion to the contrary in Gray v. Spillman, 925 F.2d 90 (4th Cir.1991), cannot apply to the circumstances of this case, where the facts and record indisputably demonstrate that any injury suffered and any force used was no more than de minimis . Otherwise, the barest allegation of excessive force in an interrogation, even if producing no confession and resulting only in some form of psychological discomfort (and even that wholly unsupported by the factual record), would automatically survive summary judgment and proceed to trial. Rule 56 is not so easily eluded. "One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses, and ... it should be interpreted in a way that allows it to accomplish this purpose." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. Appellant's claim, as the district court understood, falls squarely within this category.

Finally, the majority's response to this claim is instructive. The majority never informs us how a jury might conceivably find this plaintiff worthy of belief. It simply says we must go to trial over any bald assertion. The majority never disputes the endless record of plaintiff's trivial complaints. It never suggests that plaintiff sought medical attention of any sort for any harm arising from the interrogation. It never even contends that plaintiff suffered more than de minimis physical or psychological injury. It only wheels out stock rhetoric of police brutality in support of its position. See supra p. 117 (discussing a suspect's "being smacked around"); supra n. 8 (such a rule "would give police a license to hit interrogees, so long as the police leave no marks"). Such general rhetoric is sometimes applicable and sometimes not. In all events, it is a poor substitute for a discerning look at whether a particular case is deserving of a trial. ²

II.

Allowing suits of this sort to proceed to trial, despite Norman and despite Rule 56, will visit harmful effects on the interrogation process and on law enforcement in general. To be sure, due process requires the government to produce evidence against a defendant "by the independent labor of its officers, not by the simple, cruel expedient of forcing it from his own lips." Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 582, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1867, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). Yet offsetting this important concern is an equally significant one, "the acknowledged need for police questioning as a tool for the effective enforcement of criminal laws." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2046, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). There is a balance to be struck between these two interests, Moran v. Burbine, ...