Rhodes v. Michigan

Decision Date24 August 2021
Docket NumberNo. 20-1246,20-1246
Citation10 F.4th 665
Parties Kelly Jane RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants, Paul McPherson; Richard Jones, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

ARGUED: Amy J. DeRouin, CHRISTOPHER TRAINOR & ASSOCIATES, White Lake, Michigan, for Appellant. James T. Farrell, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Amy J. DeRouin, CHRISTOPHER TRAINOR & ASSOCIATES, White Lake, Michigan, for Appellant. James T. Farrell, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellees.

Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DAUGHTREY, J., joined, and THAPAR, J., joined in part. THAPAR, J. (pp. 26–40), delivered a separate opinion dissenting in part.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.

While incarcerated and working as a laundry porter at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility ("WHVCF"), Kelly Rhodes suffered a severe skull fracture and other injuries when an industrial laundry cart—weighing as much as 400 pounds—fell from the truck from which it was being unloaded and struck her. Rhodes brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages against the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), and various individuals for their roles in the incident, alleging, inter alia, violations of the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process. After Rhodes voluntarily dismissed the other defendants, the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Richard Jones, an MDOC employee who was driving the laundry truck, and Paul McPherson, a WHVCF officer who was operating the truck's hydraulic lift gate when the incident occurred. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Incarcerated at WHVCF since May 2013, Rhodes began working as a laundry porter in October 2015. On October 15, 2015—Rhodes's second day of work as a laundry porter—she suffered skull and facial fractures, brain injuries, internal bleeding, and further injuries to her face, scalp, and left side when a laundry cart fell onto her from the truck that she was unloading. See R. 55-2 (Rhodes Dep. at 66) (Page ID #641). Jones, a driver for the MDOC, was operating the truck, which carried the prison's clean and dirty linens to and from an external laundry facility. R. 55-4 (Jones Dep. at 12) (Page ID #677). McPherson, a MHVCF officer, was operating the truck's hydraulic lift gate from the side of the truck. See R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 24, 29–30) (Page ID #719, 724–25). Two other laundry porters, Anthernett Thomas and Tabitha Parker, were working with Rhodes and witnessed the incident. R. 55-3 (Thomas Dep. at 31) (Page ID #666). The laundry carts used to transport linens at WHVCF are large plastic bins that are approximately 3 feet by 4 feet wide, vary in height between 3 and 6 feet, and weigh between 50 and 400 pounds, depending on how much laundry they are holding. See R. 55-4 (Jones Dep. at 15–17, 21) (Page ID #678–80).

There is little, if any, formal procedure for the unloading and loading of laundry trucks at MHVCF or for training new laundry porters like Rhodes. See R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 42–45) (Page ID #737–40) ("There's no set procedure ... for the swapping of laundry carts. So I'm afraid I had to improvise."). As Jones describes the process, he would drive the laundry truck through the prison's gates and then back the truck into a sally port within MHVCF, where the laundry porters would be present. R. 55-4 (Jones Dep. at 10–12) (Page ID #677). If he came in to drop off clean linens, Jones would enter the trailer and push or pull (depending on what was most comfortable at the time) the full laundry carts to the rear of the trailer. Id. at 18–19, 21 (Page ID #679–80). Jones would then push the laundry cart onto the lift gate, with a laundry porter waiting below in the sally port with their hands up to steady the loaded cart. Id. at 21, 34–35 (Page ID #680, 683). Only after Jones assured that the laundry porter had the cart secured—by asking something like "Do you have it?" and receiving an affirmative response—would he let go of the cart. Id. at 30 (Page ID #682). McPherson would say "up" or "down" to signal that the lift gate was being raised or lowered, id. at 36 (Page ID #683), and would shout "ready" to make sure that the laundry porters were looking at the truck and prepared to control the carts as he lowered the lift, see R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 24–25) (Page ID #719–20). The laundry porters would then hold the carts in place as McPherson lowered the lift. Id. at 28 (Page ID #723). McPherson would not move the lift until the carts were controlled in order to make sure that the carts did not tip over onto one of the laundry porters. Id. at 28 (Page ID #723). Once the carts were unloaded from the laundry truck, laundry porters would take the carts into their units of the prison to unload the laundry. See R. 55-2 (Rhodes Dep. at 63) (Page ID #640).

Rhodes has no memory of the day that she was injured, id. at 56–57 (Page ID #638–39), and the various witnesses paint different pictures of what occurred.

Jones testified that he pulled a loaded cart to the lift gate where Rhodes was waiting as usual for the laundry porters, but he admits that he did not ask whether she had control before letting go of the cart. R. 55-4 (Jones Dep. at 30–31) (Page ID #682). He believes that Rhodes did have control of the cart before it fell but then "for whatever reason, [Rhodes] quit caring and ... let go of the cart." Id. at 33 (Page ID #683). This occurred just after McPherson said "down" to indicate that the lift was being lowered. Id. at 36–37 (Page ID #683–84). After releasing the cart, Jones turned around and began moving towards the back of the truck to retrieve another laundry cart. Id. at 33 (Page ID #683). Thus, he did not see the cart tip onto Rhodes. See id.

McPherson denies that he had started to move the lift down before the laundry cart tipped over onto Rhodes. R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 56–57) (Page ID #751–52). He testified that, as usual, he shouted "ready" to ensure that the laundry porters knew to steady the carts so that he could safely lower the lift gate. Id. at 24 (Page ID #719). However, he claims that Rhodes was looking to her left when the cart struck her, and he cannot remember whether she had her hands up to control the cart as it lowered. See id. at 22, 41, 53 (Page ID #717, 736, 748). The cart tipped over onto Rhodes, knocking her to the concrete, and causing her to strike her head against the concrete, with the cart landing on her legs. Id. at 37 (Page ID #732). Rhodes was initially unresponsive but still breathing, although she "was bleeding profusely from her nose and the left side of her head." Id. ; see also R. 55-7 (McPherson Report at 1) (Page ID #767).

According to Thomas , Jones was in a rush that day because he was running late and "flung" the cart at Rhodes without making sure that she had control of it as he usually did. R. 55-3 (Thomas Dep. at 34–35, 42) (Page ID #667, 669). The cart was going too fast and was already tilting when it reached Rhodes. Id. at 34, 42 (Page ID #667–69). At one point, Thomas testified that the lift gate had not yet been lowered when the cart began to fall onto Rhodes, id. at 34 (Page ID #667), but she later testified that the lift "was coming down" when the cart "came off," id. at 53 (Page ID #672). Either way, Thomas saw the cart tipping and told Rhodes to let it go and move out of the way as Thomas and Parker had previously instructed Rhodes to do if a cart began to tip. Id. at 34–35 (Page ID #667). Despite the instruction, and perhaps because she panicked, Rhodes moved forward instead of back and was struck by the cart, knocking her to the concrete. Id. at 34–35, 43 (Page ID #667, 669). Thomas testified that after the incident occurred McPherson and Jones were arguing back and forth about whose fault it was. Id. at 43 (Page ID #669). McPherson seemed frantic; he told Thomas and Parker to leave, and they were escorted away from the sally port. Id. at 35–36, 42–43 (Page ID #667, 679).

Although their accounts differed, everyone involved agrees that laundry-porter work is dangerous. Jones testified that "everyone knew" that being a laundry porter was dangerous and that a laundry porter could be injured if a heavy cart fell on them. R. 55-4 (Jones Dep. at 34–35) (Page ID #683). Indeed, Jones further testified that he would never be "that careless as to push a cart straight out of a trailer and just let it go" because it would pose a substantial risk of harm. Id. at 28–29 (Page ID #681–82). McPherson testified that the carts posed a substantial risk of harm to the laundry porter if the cart was being moved carelessly. R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 20–21) (Page ID #715–16). Thomas testified that the heavy carts can be dangerous, and that the laundry truck driver would know that. R. 55-3 (Thomas Dep. at 39) (Page ID #668). Indeed, Thomas testified that laundry carts had fallen from the laundry truck during unloading on multiple occasions before Rhodes's incident. Id. at 45–46 (Page ID #670).

Despite the danger, Rhodes received only limited, on-the-job training to be a laundry porter. See R. 55-2 (Rhodes Dep. at 59) (Page ID #639); see also R. 55-3 (Thomas Dep. at 14–15, 49–50) (Page ID #662, 671); R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 42–43) (Page ID #737–38). Indeed, McPherson said that he had a problem with the fact that there was no formal procedure for laundry-porter duties, testifying that there were "written guidelines for every post and every duty around [MHVCF], but there was nothing for the swapping of laundry carts." R. 55-5 (McPherson Dep. at 43–45) (Page ID #738–40). And the laundry truck that Jones used did not have what the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Zakora v. Chrisman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 10, 2022
    ...Eighth Amendment ‘unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]’ " Rhodes v. Michigan , 10 F.4th 665, 674–75 (6th Cir. 2021) (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Mingus v. Butler , 591 F.3d 474, 480 (6th Cir. 2010) ). "[T]he official must bot......
  • Brawner v. Scott Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 22, 2021
    ...in weighing the many considerations before them as they resolve a difficult episode."); cf. Rhodes v. Michigan , 10 F.4th 665, 685–87 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021) (Thapar, J., dissenting) (observing that the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment counsels against it being "a glorified tort st......
  • Estate of Zakora v. Chrisman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 10, 2022
    ...aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. awareness can be demonstrated through "inference from circumstantial evidence, . . . and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of ......
  • Ross v. Unknown Miller
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • August 8, 2022
    ...standard demarcates accidents and ordinary injuries from actionable conduct in the Eighth Amendment context.” Rhodes v. Michigan, 10 F.4th 665, 678 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, 840). The decision in Rhodes, while not discussing the concept of recklessness directly, sugge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT