Broadhead v. Woods, CIVIL ACTION 16-0108-KD-M

• Decision Date: 09 September 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION 16-0108-KD-M
• Parties: SHERMAN ANTWAN BROADHEAD, AIS #246842 Plaintiff, v. OFFICER LARRY WOODS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

SHERMAN ANTWAN BROADHEAD, AIS #246842 Plaintiff, v. OFFICER LARRY WOODS, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 16-0108-KD-M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 9, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by an Alabama prison inmate, Sherman Broadhead, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72, and is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), Defendant, Larry Wood's, Answer, Special Report, (Docs. 13, 16), and Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 24). The Court has converted Defendant's Special Report into a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17), and, after consideration of such, and for the reasons set out below, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff's action be dismissed with prejudice.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff, Sherman Broadhead, is an Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") inmate, serving a twenty year sentence for First Degree Rape at Holman Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1 at 5). Larry Woods is a Corporal employed by the Baldwin County Corrections Center. (Doc. 13-2 at 2).

This action arises out of an incident on August 29, 2015, wherein Plaintiff was sprayed with OC Spray¹ and hit with two shots from a pepper ball gun by Defendant. (Doc. 1). According to Plaintiff, on the day of the incident, he was confined in a "suicide cell" in the Baldwin County Jail when he was told to "get down on the floor and put my hand[s] behind my back." (Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff asserts he "did everything he was told", but that he was still sprayed in the face with mace. (Id.) After being sprayed, Plaintiff jumped up and started swinging at the officers in "self defense". (Doc. 24 at 8-9). He was then shot twice with a pepper ball gun by Defendant Woods, taken to the floor by other officers, and ultimately placed in a restraint chair. (Id. at 9-11).

As a result of the above-described incident, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant for criminalnegligence, excessive force, and assault. (Id. at 4). For relief, Plaintiff requests "$350,000 for my damages and what was did to me and to make sure this officer can't do this again to me or others again." (Id. at 6).

Defendant Wood filed his Answer and Special Report, denying Plaintiff's allegations and pleading multiple defenses. (Docs. 13, 16). The relevant documents filed with the Special Report were: Plaintiff's booking report (Doc. 13-1); the affidavit of Larry Woods (Doc. 13-2); the jail incident report (Doc. 13-3); the video of the incident (filed conventionally as Doc. 14); the statements of Officer Steven Drinkard and Staff Sergeant Klos (Docs. 13-5 and 13-6, respectively); the Use of Force report (Doc. 13-7); the Confinement Watch log (Doc. 13-8); all incident reports involving Plaintiff (Docs. 13-10 and 13-11); all disciplinary reports involving Plaintiff (Doc. 13-12); and all grievances completed by Plaintiff (Doc. 13-3).

According to Defendant's Special Report, Plaintiff was booked into the Baldwin County Detention Center on July 9, 2015. (Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 13-1). On August 29, 2015, the date of the subject incident, Defendant Woods was working in the "G" pod unit, when he was asked to assist with a situation involving Plaintiff. (Doc. 13 at 2; Doc. 13-2 at ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 13-3). Defendant Woods was relieved from G-Pod to assist with Plaintiff whom he understood was continuously kicking his cell door and acting in an aggressive manner towards staff members. (Doc. 13 at 2-3; Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 7; Doc. 13-3). When Defendant arrived to Plaintiff's cell unit, Plaintiff was kicking his cell unit door and was not complying with the officers who were already present (Staff Sergeant Klos, Private First Class Drinkard, and Private First Class Green,) all of whom were at Plaintiff's cell with the intention of putting Plaintiff in a restraint chair. (Doc. 13 at 3; Doc. 13-2 at ¶¶ 8-9; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 13-6.)

Upon arrival to Plaintiff's cell, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to lie down and place his hands behind his back, but Plaintiff did not comply. (Doc. 13 at 3; Doc. 13-2 at ¶¶ 10 and 11; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 14; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 13-6). According to Defendant, Plaintiff was additionally in a push-up position that could have allowed him to quickly jump up and potentially fight any of the officers that were present. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 12.). Due to Plaintiff's failure to lie flat on the ground and place his hands behind his back, Defendant sprayed Plaintiff with a one second burst of pepper spray. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 13; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 14; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 13-6; Doc. 13-7). Once pepper sprayed, Plaintiff immediately jumped up and started swinging hisfists at Defendant. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 14; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 14; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 13-6). Defendant was scratched by Plaintiff after which Defendant shot Plaintiff with two pepper balls from his pepper ball gun. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶¶ 15-17; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 14; Doc. 13-6).

After being shot, Plaintiff complied with the officers' commands by lying flat on the floor and placing his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 18; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 14; Doc. 13-5; Doc. 13-6). Plaintiff was then placed in a restraining chair and taken by the correctional officers to be decontaminated. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 19; Doc. 13-3; Doc. 14; Docs. 13-5, 13-6, and 13-7). Video of the incident does not show the entirety of the scene leading up to Defendant arriving to Plaintiff's cell, but does show Plaintiff lying on the floor before being sprayed with pepper spray by Defendant. (Doc. 14). Video also shows Plaintiff jumping up and swinging at Defendant before being shot with pepper balls and ultimately being placed in a restraint chair by several officers. (Id.)

Prior to the subject incident, Plaintiff had informed some of the correctional officers that he was going to send one of them to the hospital. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 25). Additionally, in the weeks leading up to the subject incident, Plaintiff verbally threatened Defendant onnumerous occasions and had at least fifteen incident reports written on his behalf due to his attitude and behavior, one of which resulted in Plaintiff being informed that any further confrontations would result in him being sprayed with OC spray. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 26; Doc. 13-11; Doc. 13-6 at 3; Doc. 13-12). Plaintiff did not file any inmate request slips or grievance forms regarding the August 29, 2015 incident. (Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 27; Doc. 13-13).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant this Court authority under Rule 56 to render "judgment as a matter of law" to the party who moves for summary judgment. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. . . ." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must view the evidence produced by "the nonmoving party, and all factual inferences arising from it, in the light most favorable to" that party. Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989). However, Rule 56(e) states that:

If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion offact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e). "[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. . . . If the evidence is merely colorable, . . . or is not significantly probative, . . . summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (internal citations omitted). "Summary judgment is mandated where a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Custom Mfg. and Eng'g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc., 508 F.3d 641, 647 (11th Cir. 2007).

Also, it is well settled that a conclusion cannot be taken as true, and the Court will not accept conclusory allegations as facts in consideration of a motion for summary judgment. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); see also Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000)("[t]his court has consistentlyheld that conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value"); Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984)(a plaintiff's mere verification of conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment).

DISCUSSION

A. Excessive Force

Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, criminal negligence, and assault. (Doc. 1 at 4). According to Plaintiff, the excessive force claim is supported by the fact that Plaintiff did as he was told prior to being pepper sprayed by Defendant, and, yet, was still sprayed maliciously and without cause. (Doc. 1, 1-1; Doc. 24, generally).

Section 1983 provides in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights ... 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 . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994).

The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment governs the amount of...