Henson v. Falls, CO-I
| Decision Date | 29 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | CO-I,No. 90-1016,90-1016 |
| Citation | 912 F.2d 977 |
| Parties | Billy Joe HENSON, Appellant, v. Sgt. T.S. FALLS;S. Kelley;L. Pace; J. Brown, RN, Infirmary, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Billy Joe Henson, pro se.
Paul L. Cherry, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before MAGILL and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Billy Joe Henson appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We reverse and remand for a jury trial.
Henson, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed this section 1983 action against three prison officials and a private health care provider under contract with the ADC. In his complaint Henson asserted that on February 16, 1988, while he was in punitive isolation, he was told by CO-I Kelley that he had to eat food containing pork or not eat at all, despite his request for a porkfree meal for religious reasons. Henson asked to speak with the supervisor, Sergeant Falls. After Henson complained to Falls about the pork meal, Falls told Henson he did not like Henson's attitude, and ordered Henson handcuffed and taken to a quiet cell. Henson refused to be handcuffed and asked to see a higher official. Henson asserted Falls, Kelley, and CO-I Pace then entered his cell and beat him with billy clubs on his back, buttocks, and head.
Henson alleged he was escorted to the infirmary where a nurse refused to give him treatment. He then was taken to a quiet cell and was beaten a second time by Falls. Henson claimed that while in the quiet cell he suffered further harassment by being given excess salt in his food. He suffered headaches and dizziness as a result of the beatings. He also stated the beatings were excessive because Falls held a canister of c/s gas which, if used, would have been sufficient to control him.
Henson sought compensatory and punitive damages. He asked for a jury trial and appointment of counsel. The magistrate denied his request for counsel. The district court ordered the case scheduled for an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate to determine whether Henson could "make a submissible case to the jury, i.e., whether his claim [could] survive a motion for a directed verdict." The magistrate conducted a hearing and permitted Henson to call two of the four witnesses he had requested.
In his report, the magistrate noted that credibility determinations should not be made, but stated he did not feel constrained to accept all of Henson's testimony "regardless of its inherent incredibility." The magistrate found that Henson had complained about receiving a pork tray and that an argument had developed between Henson and Falls. Falls concluded Henson should be transferred to a quiet cell and ordered Henson handcuffed, which Henson refused. Falls then acquired a safety shield and instructed other officers to accompany him into Henson's cell to forcibly handcuff him. The officers then subdued Henson and took him to a quiet cell.
With respect to the degree of force used, the magistrate noted the discrepancies between Henson's witnesses' testimony. One inmate testified Henson was beaten for thirty minutes and thrown to the floor; another inmate testified the officers were only in Henson's cell for fifteen to twenty seconds and did not throw Henson to the floor but pushed Henson up against the wall; Henson testified the beating lasted fifteen to twenty minutes and he received a small cut under his lip.
The magistrate concluded that there was no credible evidence from which a reasonable juror could accept Henson's version of the incident or could conclude the officers acted maliciously or sadistically, and that Henson did not demonstrate a serious medical need. The magistrate concluded that a verdict in Henson's favor would have to be set aside, and thus recommended dismissing the complaint.
Henson filed timely objections to the report. The district court stated it "reviewed the recommended disposition of this case submitted by the magistrate as well as the objections filed," and adopting the magistrate's findings, dismissed the complaint. In this timely appeal, Henson challenges the magistrate's credibility determinations.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B), a district court judge may designate a magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc.
...1112, 101 S.Ct. 921, 66 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981). Questions of credibility should not be resolved by a directed verdict. See Henson v. Falls, 912 F.2d 977 (8th Cir.1990) and Dalton v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 703 F.2d 137 (5th Cir.1983). The requisites for tort recovery against a manufacturer in......
-
Hobbs v. Lockhart
...type of hearing); Pettengill v. Veasey, 983 F.2d 130 (8th Cir.1993) (Eastern District of Arkansas) (same type of hearing); Henson v. Falls, 912 F.2d 977 (8th Cir.1990) (Eastern District of Arkansas) (same type of hearing); cf. Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110 (8th Cir.1994) (Western District of ......
-
Fontenot v. UV Ins. Risk Retention Grp., Inc.
...should not be resolved by a directed verdict." Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc., 571 So.2d 140, 144 (La. 1990), citing Henson v. Falls , 912 F.2d 977 (8th Cir. 1990) and Dalton v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 703 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1983). The jury, as factfinder, is responsible for weighing......
-
Johnson v. Bi-State Justice Center/Arkansas Dept. of Corrections, Hart , Jordan , Johnson , Allen , Stringfellow , Webb , Gilbert , Sullivan
...Sec. 1983 damage claims warrant a jury trial. See Pettengill v. Veasey, 983 F.2d 130, 132-33 (8th Cir.1993); Henson v. Falls, 912 F.2d 977, 979 (8th Cir.1990). However, we have stressed that such a hearing must be consistent with the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. Therefore, if only the......