Chaney v. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:19-cv-00005 (Erie),1:19-cv-00005 (Erie) |
| Parties | CHARLES ALVIN CHANEY, JR., Plaintiff v. CO R.M. BEDNARD, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Charles Alvin Chaney, Jr. (Chaney) filed this pro se action against seven individuals employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion): Corrections Officer Bednaro, Sergeant Clinger, Corrections Officer Borello, Corrections Officer Bornsheuer, Lieutenant Barner, Corrections Officer Boyd, and Corrections Officer Seeley.1 ECF No. 4. Chaney alleges that while he was incarcerated at SCI-Albion on May 15, 2018, the Defendants used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Id., pp. 2-3. The Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Chaney failed to identify them by name in his initial grievance and therefore did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies through the prison grievance system as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. ECF No. 4, ¶¶ 9-10. They also argue that the force used to control him on May 15, 2018 was reasonable and appropriate.
For the following reasons, the Court finds that SCI-Albion personnel excused Chaney's procedural default against all Defendants except Seeley and, therefore, except as to Seeley, his claims are not barred by the PLRA. However, based upon the video and audio record, the Court also holds that a reasonable jury could not find that the force used by corrections officers on May 15, 2018 was excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances faced by them. Therefore, the record does not support a triable issue of material fact, and the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, on Chaney's excessive force claim.2
Chaney's Complaint was docketed with this Court on February 12, 2019. ECF No. 4. The Defendants filed their Answer on June 11, 2019. ECF No. 19. Chaney filed a motion to amend his complaint on August 14, 2019, seeking to add three new defendants.3 ECF No. 25. The Court denied this motion without prejudice because Chaney failed to include a proposed amended complaint as required by Third Circuit law. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp., v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. 482 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007); ECF No. 26. Although the Court's order was without prejudice, Chaney did not renew his motion or otherwise produce a proposed amended complaint. Accordingly, his original Complaint at ECF No. 4 remains his operative pleading.4 Chaney later filed an affidavit—titled "Narrative Statement"—which provides more detailed allegations regarding the events of May 15, 2018 upon which he bases his claim.5 ECF No. 38.
On March 5, 2020, the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and a brief in support of the motion. ECF Nos. 43, 44. Thereafter, on March 23, 2020, the Defendants filed their Concise Statement of Material Facts. ECF No. 52. Chaney filed a document titled "Objections," presumably in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, on March 18, 2020.6 ECF No. 47. He filed his own Concise Statement of Material Facts on April 8, 2020. ECF No. 53. It does not respond point-by-point to the Defendants' Concise Statement of Material Facts, but instead provides a two-page narrative of Chaney's version of events. Chaney also filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and a Statement of Disputed Factual Issues along with numerous attachments. ECF Nos. 55, 57. The Defendants filed a Response to the Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Factual Issues on May 19, 2020. ECF No. 59. Chaney then filed a "Rebuttal" to the Defendants' Response on May 26, 2020. ECF No. 60. The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Chaney's claim arose from an incident at SCI-Albion on May 15, 2018. Chaney's initial grievance alleged that several corrections officers assaulted him, made threats of a sexual nature, and used racial epithets against him. ECF No. 44-2, p. 22. In his Complaint, he alleged that he was "thrown violently to the ground" and that Sgt. Clinger used a taser on his right leg while he wasrestrained. He also asserts that Corrections Officer Borello punched him in his right eye, kneed him in the same eye, and attempted to punch him in the same eye a second time.7 ECF No. 4, pp. 2-3.
The record includes four video recordings of the incident. ECF No. 42. Two discs contain video recorded from stationary cameras while the third recorded video is from a handheld camera that followed Chaney and corrections officers throughout the entire use of force incident. The events captured on videos are described in Section IV (B) of this opinion. The record also includes the report of an internal investigation, #2018-A-309, which was conducted by Lt. Skinner. ECF No. 44-2. This report is comprised of reviews of the four video recordings, two written statements from Chaney, reviews of eight statements from staff involved in the incident, and additional investigative statements.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to enter 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). Under this standard "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A disputed fact is "material" if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict forthe nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial, the court must view the record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consol. Rail Corp., 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). To avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of his or her pleadings. Instead, once the movant satisfies its burden of identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must to go beyond his pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or other record evidence to demonstrate specific material facts that give rise to a genuine issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
Further, under Rule 56, a defendant may seek summary judgment by pointing to the absence of a genuine fact issue on one or more essential claim elements. The Rule mandates summary judgment if the plaintiff then fails to make a sufficient showing on each of those elements. When Rule 56 shifts the burden of production to the nonmoving party, "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. See also Harter v. G.A.F. Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 851 (3d Cir. 1992).
Before reaching the merits of Chaney's excessive force claim, the Court must address the Defendants' argument that Chaney failed to exhaust his claims through the prison administrativegrievance system "by not identifying any of the Defendants in his Initial Grievance." ECF No. 43, ¶ 10. In support of this defense, the Defendants have produced Chaney's initial, one-page grievance. ECF No. 44-2. As discussed below, the Court finds that although Chaney's failure to identify the Defendants by name in his grievance constituted a procedural default, prison personnel excused this default for all but one of the Defendants when they identified six of the seven Defendants in their internal investigation responding to Chaney's grievance. Chaney's procedural default regarding his claim against CO Seeley is unexcused, however, because neither Chaney's grievance nor the internal investigation report identified him as involved.
Chaney filed his initial Grievance #737685 on May 16, 2018. ECF No. 44-2, p. 22. In it, he complained that several corrections officers assaulted him, made threats of a sexual nature, and used racial epithets against him. Id. His grievance did not identify any individual by name. Immediately after filing his grievance, Chaney received a "Notice of Investigation" informing him that the prison would take more time than usual "in order to appropriately investigate and respond to your allegations of abuse." ECF No. 57-5, p. 1. The notice further advised Chaney that the additional response time was authorized in accordance with DC ADM 001. Id. Lt. Skinner responded to Chaney's grievance a little more than three months later, on August 24, 2018. Id., p. 2. He rejected the grievance based upon the results of Investigation #2018-A-309 which he referenced in his grievance response. Id. Lt. Skinner's report regarding the investigation identified Sgt. Clinger, CO Borello, CO Bornsheuer, Lt. Barner, CO Bednaro, and CO Boyd as having some involvement in the use of force incident or related actions on May 15, 2018. E...
To continue reading
Request your trial