Carr v. Beth
| Decision Date | 09 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11-CV-363 |
| Parties | ARQUINCY LEE CARR, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BETH, ANDY LEITING, CARLOS GERENA, JEREMY MAY, THOMAS CARRAO, CORPORAL T. HANEY, SGT. RAY WILLSTEAD, NURSE LYNDSEY HAUCK, SGT. BERNHARDT, and STEVE RAE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
The plaintiff, ArQuincy Lee Carr, who is incarcerated at the Columbia Correctional Institution, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants David Beth, Andy J. Leiting, Carlos Gerena, Jeremy May, Thomas Carrao, Corporal T. Haney, Sergeant Ray Willsted, Sergeant Bernhardt, and Steve Rae ("Kenosha County defendants") have filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant Nurse Lyndsey Hauck, who is represented by separate counsel, has also filed a motion for summary judgment. These motions are ready for resolution and will be addressed herein.
The plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Kenosha County Jail at all times relevant to this action. He claims that the defendants violated his constitutional rights regarding an incident that took place on December 28, 2010. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that defendants Leiting,Gerena, and May physically assaulted him; defendants Carrao and Willstead failed to intervene in the use of excessive force; defendants Carrao, Willstead, and Hauck denied him medical care following the incident; and defendants Haney and Bernhardt denied him due process with regard to discipline he received after the incident.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011). "Material facts" are those under the applicable substantive law that "might affect the outcome of the suit." See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute over "material fact" is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: "(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
On December 28, 2010, the plaintiff was an inmate at the Kenosha County Jail ("Jail"). He was incarcerated as a result of charges of victim intimidation, battery, and strangulation and suffocation. The plaintiff was transferred to the Jail from the Racine County Jail on October 7, 2010, and was transferred to a Wisconsin state prison on October 20, 2011, where he remains incarcerated. Defendant David Beth is the Kenosha County Sheriff. At all times relveant, defendants Andy J. Leiting, Carlos Gerena, Jeremy May, Matthew Bernhardt, and Steve Rae were corrections officers employed at the Jail; defendants Thomas Carrao and Timothy Haney were corporals employed at the Jail; and defendant Raymond Willstead was a sergeant employed at the Jail.
While the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Jail, staff discovered that he was hiding contraband, including plastic bags, a magazine, and a pair of latex gloves, in his cell. In order to investigate the issue and determine the source of these prohibited materials, officers conducted daily inspections of the plaintiff's cell beginning approximately one week prior to the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit. The Jail Inmate/Detainee Handbook provided to the plaintiff states that these kinds of "routine and random inspections" will be conducted to assure compliance with the Jail's rules on contraband. (Willstead Aff. ¶ 12, Ex. B at 10.)
On December 28, 2010, the plaintiff was on disciplinary status and housed indisciplinary segregation for several prior major rule violations, including the continued presence of contraband in his cell. Jail policy provides that inmates on disciplinary status be properly secured with an authorized form of mechanical restraint, including handcuffs, a treatment belt, or an escort belt, when outside of their cell. That day at 3:30 p.m., defendants Leiting and Gerena began the cell inspection process by removing the plaintiff from his cell and transferring him to a holding cell. The officers, who secured the plaintiff with an escort belt while transferring him to the holding cell, informed Officer Craig Knecht and defendant Bernhardt of the transfer and asked them to monitor the plaintiff in the holding cell while Leiting and Gerena searched the plaintiff's cell. Through the use of the escort belt, the plaintiff's hands were secured in front of his body in handcuffs that were attached to a belt around his waist. The escort belt is fastened with a series of three Velcro straps that wrap around the inmate's body. When an inmate has a small waist, as was the case with the plaintiff, any excess portion of the straps may be tucked into the belt out of the inmate's reach. Defendant Gerena secured the plaintiff's hands in the handcuffs attached to the belt and checked the belt for proper fit while double locking the handcuffs.
Once the plaintiff was in the holding cell and the holding cell door was secure, he immediately tried to extricate himself from the escort belt by twisting and pulling his arms in an attempt to grasp at the belt's straps. The plaintiff reached for the end of one of the Velcro straps tucked into the belt in an attempt to unwrap the strap and remove the belt entirely. Through his actions, the plaintiff was able to reach and loosen the Velcro strap on the belt, which compromised the restraint system and posed a threat to both the officers and the plaintiff. In order to re-secure him, defendants Leiting and Gerena entered the holding cell and ordered the plaintiff to kneel on the bench against the cell wall. Putting an inmate into a kneeling position is a common practice utilizedby correctional institutions to maintain a control advantage for officers.
Defendants Leiting and Gerena were able to secure the plaintiff's arms, but he resisted their verbal orders to kneel against the wall and would only put one leg onto the bench. In order to move the plaintiff's other leg onto the bench so that the officers could secure him in a kneeling position, defendant Leiting used his left leg to maneuver the plaintiff's leg into place while using his arms to keep control of his right arm. The plaintiff continued to resist the officers' commands and control holds. He head-butted defendant Leiting on the left side of his face. The plaintiff simultaneously pushed the officers backward toward the cell wall. He threatened to kill the officers. In response, defendant Leiting used decentralization techniques, including three strikes to the plaintiff's legs and an elbow strike to his midsection, while defendant Gerena attempted to control the plaintiff's head and his descent to the ground. The officers continued to issue verbal commands to the plaintiff to stop resisting, but he refused to comply and continued to kick and fight against the officers throughout the entire incident.
Through his resistance, the plaintiff had pushed the officers into the corner of the cell. As a result, defendant Leiting repositioned himself in front of the plaintiff in order to secure his head. Defendant Leiting utilized a control tactic by applying pressure to the plaintiff's "mandibular angle." As defendant Leiting attempted to control the plaintiff, Officer Knecht and defendant Bernhardt entered the cell, and Knecht secure the plaintiff's legs while Bernhardt secure his torso. Defendant Gerena continued to order the plaintiff to stop resisting.
At this time, defendant Corrao arrived and radioed for assistance, requesting the restraint chair and a spit hood for both the plaintiff's and officers' safety. Defendant May responded to the call and observed the officers restraining the plaintiff when he arrived. Officers Daniel Lahareand LaShonda Gray, and defendant Willstead also responded. The officers then carried the plaintiff out of the holding cell and placed him into the restraint chair. He continued to resist by kicking and threatening to kill the officers while they worked together to secure his legs. The officers instructed the plaintiff to sit back in the chair but he refused. As he continued to resist, the plaintiff thrust his body forward in an attempt to get out of the chair. As defendant May attempted to control the plaintiff's head, he continued to pull away and attempted to jump out of the restraint chair. As defendant Leiting reached for the waist belt on the restraint chair to secure it, the plaintiff attempted to head-butt him again. Officer Lahare pulled the waist belt strap to secure it while the plaintiff continued to resist.
Once fully secured in the restraint chair, the plaintiff continued to threaten the officers and bragged about head-butting defendant Leiting. The plaintiff was escorted to the Health Services Unit ("HSU") for the standard restraint check and monitoring. As he was transported, the plaintiff continued to threaten...
To continue reading
Request your trial