Baker v. Willett

• Decision Date: 10 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 97-CV-1184.,97-CV-1184.
• Parties: Eugene BAKER, Plaintiff, v. Sheldon WILLETT, sued Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of the Warren County Sheriff's Department; Warren County Sheriff's Department; and The County of Warren, New York, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

42 F.Supp.2d 192

Eugene BAKER, Plaintiff, v. Sheldon WILLETT, sued Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of the Warren County Sheriff's Department; Warren County Sheriff's Department; and The County of Warren, New York, Defendants.

No. 97-CV-1184.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

March 10, 1999.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael S. O'Dell, Glens Falls, New York, for plaintiff.

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, & Firth, P.C., Glens Falls, New York (Peter D. Fitzgerald, of counsel), for defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

HURD, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Eugene Baker ("Baker" or "plaintiff") commenced this action on August 11, 1997, against the defendants as a result of injuries sustained while he was an inmate at the Warren County Jail in Lake George, New York. Baker asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and a pendent state law claim. The defendants have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. This matter was submitted for decision without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The following is most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiff. On April 29, 1996, Baker was sitting on a metal table, his feet not touching the ground, watching television from a catwalk adjacent to his cell. When defendant Sheldon Willett ("Willett"), a corrections officer employed by the defendant Warren County Sheriff's Department, stood in front of the television screen, an unidentified inmate called Willett a "fat boy" and demanded that he move out of the way. Willett subsequently stopped in front of Baker, who told Willett, "Keep going fat boy." Willett left to continue his rounds of the jail, returning several minutes later. Baker was conversing with another inmate and did not notice Willett return. When Baker was not looking, Willett pushed him in the back, causing him to fall off of the table and strike his head on the metal bars of his cell approximately four to five feet away from where he had been sitting. Plaintiff sustained a laceration on his forehead which required sutures. Willett completed an incident report that evening. The division commander informed Undersheriff Larry Cleveland ("Undersheriff Cleveland") of the incident. Undersheriff Cleveland reviewed the incident and spoke to both Baker and Willett. No formal investigation was conducted and Willett was not disciplined.

B. Motion

The causes of action alleged against Willett, in his individual and official capacities, are for excessive use of force and assault and battery; and against the defendants County of Warren ("County") and the Warren County Sheriff's Department are for deliberate indifference as a result of negligent training and supervision of personnel.¹ Defendants' motion asserts that there is no basis for municipal liability, that Willett did not use excessive force, and that he is entitled to qualified immunity. In addition, defendants claim that plaintiff's pendent state claim for assault and battery is barred by the Statute of Limitations because plaintiff did not file a notice of claim within ninety days, and did not file suit within one year and ninety days of the alleged conduct which is the subject of his complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment must be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., 949 F.2d 576, 580 (2d Cir.1991). The moving party carries the initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Thompson v. Gjivoje, 896 F.2d 716, 720 (2d Cir.1990). Facts, inferences therefrom, and ambiguities must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Project Release v. Prevost, 722 F.2d 960, 968 (2d Cir.1983).

When the moving party has met the burden, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. At that point, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56: Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348. To withstand a summary judgment motion, evidence must exist upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmovant. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248-249, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Thus summary judgment is proper where there is "little or no evidence ... in support of the non-moving party's case." Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-1224 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted).

B. Excessive Use of Force Claim against Willett

1. Standard

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). When prison officials are accused of using excessive force, the standard is "whether [the] force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973)). Conduct must be "`inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency' and `repugnant to the conscience of mankind'" to be actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 327, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285). Five factors relevant in determining whether officers acted maliciously are: The need for force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury suffered, the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. See id. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (citing Glick, 481 F.2d at 1033); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). Not "every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995. De minimis uses of physical force are excluded from Constitutional recognition as long as the force used is "not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind." Id. at 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 995.

2. Review

The parties present different versions of what happened before and after the incident, as well as different characterizations of Willett's conduct. Willett, who stands over six feet tall and weighs approximately two hundred sixty pounds, claims that he tapped Baker, who is five feet four inches tall and weighs approximately one hundred fifty pounds, on the shoulder and asked him what was happening. Willett asserts that plaintiff became startled, stumbled, and hit his head on the food tray attached to his cell. Willett claims that he later apologized to Baker for startling him. Baker, on the other hand, claims that insults had been levied against Willett a few minutes before Willett "hit [him] in the back," knocking Baker into the bars of his cell. (Baker Dep. at p. 20.) Plaintiff claims that Willett later apologized for hitting him so hard.

As noted above, for the purpose of this motion, the facts must be viewed most favorably to the plaintiff. However, the defendants claim that the distinctions between each party's version of the facts do not matter. They assert that plaintiff's injury was not sufficiently serious to implicate the Eighth Amendment because Baker's initial reaction after striking his head was that he did not think the injury was serious. In addition, the defendants claim that Baker's actual injury was not causally connected to Willett's conduct, as evidenced by his failure to claim a back injury. Finally, the defendants assert that plaintiff cannot demonstrate malice because of Willett's claim that he merely tapped Baker and the subsequent events were merely "ill-fated circumstances." (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ.J. at 5.)

The defendants' assertions fail to banish the genuine issues of material fact which remain in this case. Baker's immediate response to a head injury could be the result of many factors and is hardly determinative regarding the seriousness of the injury. The fact that he did not claim a back injury is of no moment. The resulting injury to plaintiff's head was the product of a chain of events which commenced when Willett made contact with plaintiff's back. Thus plaintiff's injury is traceable to Willett's conduct. The competing versions of the events occurring before, during, and after the incident require findings to be made regarding the defendant's motivation and intent, the amount of force used, and the nature and extent of the injuries received by the plaintiff. These are issues of fact which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

3. Qualified Immunity

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits against them in their individual capacity for money damages where "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). A right...