Ridley v. Leavitt, 78-6402
| Decision Date | 17 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-6402,78-6402 |
| Parties | Arthur RIDLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. Charles H. LEAVITT, Sheriff; Clyde Miller, Deputy Sheriff; and unknown defendants, persons who have in the past, or who are now deputy sheriffs at the Norfolk City Jail and whose names are now unknown to plaintiff, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
William W. Nexsen, Norfolk, Va. (Stackhouse, Rowe & Smith, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Charles E. Vogan, Jr., Norfolk, Va. (Joseph H. Campbell, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, and WALTER E. HOFFMAN, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
In this § 1983 action, Arthur Ridley, Jr., alleges that while confined as a pretrial detainee at the Norfolk City Jail, he was severely beaten by six deputy sheriffs, placed in isolation for two days without water or sufficient bedding, and denied adequate medical attention. He also avers that, on one occasion, he discovered glass in his food and was not permitted to see a doctor until two days thereafter. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on each of plaintiff's claims. Though we approve the entry of summary judgment in all other respects, we believe that the allegation that plaintiff received a severe and unwarranted beating while detained at the jail raises a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore remand the case for trial on this issue alone.
The complaint states that, as a result of his persistent complaints about the food served at the jail, plaintiff was told he would be moved to segregation. During this move, plaintiff alleges that he was beaten, handcuffed, dropped on the floor, and beaten again about the head and eyes. Affidavits submitted by the defendants indicate that plaintiff was transferred to isolation only after he had thrown the dinners of his fellow prisoners against his jail cell wall and that, in the course of the transfer, he assaulted three deputy sheriffs. Plaintiff does not deny that he was charged with three counts of assault arising out of this incident and that he was subsequently convicted on all three counts in a state trial court.
The district court held that Ridley's claim of excessive force was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court reasoned:
(B)efore the judge of the (state trial court) could have found Arthur Ridley, Jr. guilty of assaulting his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albers v. Whitley, Civ. A. No. 81-517-PA.
...when applied in pursuit of legitimate objectives, if it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives. Ridley v. Leavitt, 631 F.2d 358, 360 (4th Cir. 1980); Suits v. Lynch, 437 F.Supp. 38, 40 Here, the uncontradicted evidence is that defendants were faced with a riot situation. ......
-
Sheets v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections
...unjustifiably beaten after he had been subdued, as the duty need not necessarily be owed to the eventual plaintiffs. See Ridley v. Leavitt, 631 F.2d 358 (4th Cir.1980). In Ridley, the Fourth Circuit found that a claim of excessive force used against an inmate stated a proper constitutional ......
- United States v. Under Seal
-
Miller v. Glanz
...estoppel effect of Miller's conviction on the second of these two alleged incidents of use of excessive force. See Ridley v. Leavitt, 631 F.2d 358, 359-60 (4th Cir.1980); Williams v. Liberty, 461 F.2d 325, 327-28 (7th Cir.1972); Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74, 81-82 (3d With regard to plainti......