Gray v. Farley, s. 92-2584

• Decision Date: 30 December 1993
• Docket Number: Nos. 92-2584,92-2585,s. 92-2584
• Citation: Gray v. Farley, 13 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 1993)
• Parties: Robert M. GRAY, suing individually and by his next friend; Rosemary Gray, his mother, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stephen FARLEY; Paul E. Waterson, Sheriff of Mason County, West Virginia; Delbert Harrison, Sheriff of Putnam County, West Virginia; Bobby E. Blankenship; William E. Gillispie, Defendants-Appellees, and Raymond Huck, individually, his next friend and/or Estate; John Does, A through and including J, presently unknown law enforcement officers employed by Putnam County, West Virginia; Nationwide Insurance Company; D. Michael Fewell, Committee for Raymond Huck, Defendants. Robert M. GRAY, suing individually and by his next friend; Rosemary Gray, his mother, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stephen FARLEY; Paul E. Waterson, Sheriff of Mason County, West Virginia; Delbert Harrison, Sheriff of Putnam County, West Virginia; Bobby E. Blankenship; William E. Gillispie, Defendants-Appellees, and Raymond Huck, individually, his next friend and/or Estate; John Does, A through and including J, presently unknown law enforcement officers employed by Putnam County, West Virginia; Nationwide Insurance Company; D. Michael Fewell, Committee for Raymond Huck, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 142

13 F.3d 142

Robert M. GRAY, suing individually and by his next friend;

Rosemary Gray, his mother, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Stephen FARLEY; Paul E. Waterson, Sheriff of Mason County,

West Virginia; Delbert Harrison, Sheriff of Putnam County,

West Virginia; Bobby E. Blankenship; William E. Gillispie,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

Raymond Huck, individually, his next friend and/or Estate;

John Does, A through and including J, presently unknown law

enforcement officers employed by Putnam County, West

Virginia; Nationwide Insurance Company; D. Michael Fewell,

Committee for Raymond Huck, Defendants.

Robert M. GRAY, suing individually and by his next friend;

Rosemary Gray, his mother, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.Stephen FARLEY; Paul E. Waterson, Sheriff of Mason County,

West Virginia; Delbert Harrison, Sheriff of Putnam County,

West Virginia; Bobby E. Blankenship; William E. Gillispie,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

Raymond Huck, individually, his next friend and/or Estate;

John Does, A through and including J, presently unknown law

enforcement officers employed by Putnam County, West

Virginia; Nationwide Insurance Company; D. Michael Fewell,

Committee for Raymond Huck, Defendants.

Nos. 92-2584, 92-2585.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 6, 1993.

Decided Dec. 30, 1993.

Charles Amos Riffee, II, Caldwell, Cannon-Ryan & Riffee, Charleston, WV, argued, for appellants.

Stephen Mark Fowler, Cleek, Pullin & Bibb, Charleston, WV, argued (Jeffrey Wakefield, on brief), for appellee Waterson.

Before WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge, and MICHAEL, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

OPINION

SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge:

Robert Gray was convicted in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, of murdering an off-duty deputy sheriff after Gray's failed attempt at arson.After his conviction, Gray sued law enforcement officers of Putnam and Mason Counties, West Virginia, and other persons, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983,1985,1986, and1988, the West Virginia Constitution, and West Virginia law.His claims on appeal stem either directly or indirectly from alleged beatings he received from the officers while in custody.

I

On August 17, 1989, Gray shot and killed John Janey, an off-duty deputy sheriff of Putnam County, West Virginia, on the property of Raymond Huck in Putnam County.Huck had hired Gray to set fire to his house so Huck could collect insurance benefits from Nationwide Insurance Company("Nationwide").Before the shooting, Nationwide discovered Huck's plan and sent Janey, who worked after-hours for Nationwide, to watch Huck's property.Janey saw Gray enter Huck's house and pour gasoline inside.After radioing for assistance, Janey tried to arrest Gray.According to Gray, the attempted arrest resulted in a violent fight.Gray testified in his criminal trial that he shot Janey three times at close range in self-defense as Janey was trying to arrest him.

After a chase through the woods, Putnam County officers Stephen Farley and Bobby Blankenship arrested Gray, six miles from Huck's house, for killing Janey.As the officers escorted him to the nearby police cruiser, Officer Farley informed Gray of his Miranda rights.Gray alleges that around this time, he was beaten by Officer Farley and other unidentified officers and that once inside the cruiser, he was struck by a number of other police officers whom he could not identify.In the cruiser, he first told the officers that he had not shot Janey.While traveling to the Putnam County jail, however, he confessed to the killing.The statement was reduced to writing, and Gray signed it at the Putnam County jail.At his criminal trial, he claimed that the statement was coerced by the beatings.

For reasons not clear from the record, after he had been arraigned and had given his statement at the Putnam County jail, Gray was transferred to the custody of Mason County SheriffPaul E. Waterson and transferred to the Mason County jail.¹Gray claims that he was beaten while exiting the Putnam County jail and beaten again by his escorts, Putnam County Officers Gillispie and Hedrick, after he exited Sheriff Waterson's automobile at the Mason County jail site.

Gray further contends that at the Mason County jail, he repeatedly requested medical treatment.²The routine health questionnaire completed for Gray upon his arrival at the jail, however, shows that he did not request immediate medical attention.The undisputed evidence also shows that an emergency medical technician at the jail examined Gray and found that he did not require medical assistance.Later that evening, Gray complained that he had a cut at the back of his head and pain in his groin area.In response, the correctional officer checked on Gray every thirty minutes for the rest of the evening and the next day to see if he was responsive.The following morning, jail personnel arranged a doctor's appointment for Gray.On the afternoon of August 18, 1989, Dr. Bakshay Chhibber examined Gray and diagnosed him with a superficial scalp laceration, a urinary tract infection, and a soft tissue injury.For treatment, he prescribed an antibiotic and an anti-inflammatory medication and ordered a urinalysis.On August 28, 1989, after visiting with Gray, Gray's counsel filed a motion for immediate medical examination and treatment.Jail records show that Dr. Chhibber examined Gray again on August 29, 1989.On that date, Dr. Chhibber opined that Gray's urinary tract infection had subsided, that he had a possible allergy to his antibiotic, and that he had a questionable neuritis etiology (numbness in his right hand).On November 7, 1989, Chhibber saw Gray again and treated him for scabies.

Gray was indicted and tried on the charge of first-degree murder in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia.After a suppression hearing, the state trial judge ruled Gray's inculpatory statement admissible.Gray was convicted of murder after a jury trial, and his conviction was later affirmed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

II

Gray brought this civil action in the federal district court for the Southern District of West Virginia on August 21, 1991, against Nationwide Insurance Company, Huck's estate, Deputy Sheriff Farley, Deputy Sheriff Blankenship, Deputy Sheriff Gillispie, Sheriff Delbert Harrison of Putnam County, Sheriff Waterson of Mason County, and other unidentified law enforcement officers claiming that: (1) Nationwide was negligent in employing Janey; (2) Huck failed to maintain safe premises; (3) Farley and Blankenship had Gray under their control when he was beaten after his arrest; (4) Gray was beaten after his arrest by Farley, Gillispie, and other unknown officers; (5) officers, who knew about the beatings, failed to prevent them in violation of Gray's federal and state constitutional rights; (6) the officers present at the beatings conspired to interfere with Gray's civil rights; (7) the shooting and beatings occurred because Harrison and Waterson failed to properly train and supervise their deputies; and (8) Gray received inadequate medical care while in Harrison's custody at the Putnam County jail and while in Waterson's custody at the Mason County jail.

Gray voluntarily dismissed all claims against Nationwide.The district court dismissed his claims against Huck's estate, and Gray did not appeal.In granting summary judgment on the failure to train allegation, the district court found a complete lack of evidence concerning inadequate training of the deputies.Gray, on appeal, does not attack that ruling.

The district court, in granting summary judgment in favor of the deputies on the excessive force claim, found the complaint against them to be barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the issue having been tried at the suppression hearing in the state circuit court).The district court, granting summary judgment to Sheriffs Waterson and Harrison, found no evidence that Gray was denied adequate medical attention.Gray, on appeal, attacks the grant of summary judgment to Sheriff Waterson, claiming that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Gray received adequate medical attention at the Mason County jail.As to the summary judgment granted to the deputies, Gray contends that "collateral estoppel and res judicata do not operate to bar his ... actions under Section 1983 ... because the issue of excessive force was not distinctly put in issue and directly determined in the criminal prosecution in the State Court."

We review the district court's summary judgment ruling on this matter de novo.Foster v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 984 F.2d 128, 130(4th Cir.1993).Summary judgment is proper if, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);seeCatawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, 978 F.2d 1334, 1339(4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1415, 122 L.Ed.2d 785(1993).The nonmoving party is entitled to all justifiable...