Smith v. Wester, Case No. 5:18-cv-192-TKW-HTC
| Decision Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:18-cv-192-TKW-HTC |
| Parties | DE'ANTE J. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. A. WESTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 42). The matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for preliminary screening and report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B). Upon review and careful consideration of the motion, evidence, and response (ECF Doc. 48), the undersigned recommends the motion be GRANTED.
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC"), currently incarcerated at Suwanee Correctional Institution ("Suwanee CI"), sues five correctional officers: Captain Wester, Officer Hatton, Sergeant Branch, Sergeant Johnson, and Officer Bourcier1 for violating his Eighth Amendment rights in bothusing excessive force on him and failing to protect him from the use of excessive force. Plaintiff's claims arise from three (3) use of force incidents that occurred on January 28, 2018, while he was at Apalachee Correctional Institution ("Apalachee CI"). ECF Doc. 9 at 2. Plaintiff also alleges an Eighth Amendment claim based on his placement on property restrictions on January 27, 2018. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges a claim of conspiracy against the Defendants. Id. at 11-14. Plaintiff sues all Defendants in their individual capacities. Id. at 1.
To prevail on their motion for summary judgment, Defendants must show Plaintiff has no evidence to support his case or present affirmative evidence that Plaintiff will be unable to prove his case at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). If Defendants successfully negate an essential element of Plaintiff's case, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Id. 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, 248 (1986) (emphases omitted). An issue of fact is material if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law which might affect the outcome of the case. See id.; accord Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 1992).
Additionally, the Court must view all the evidence, and all factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence, "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993). "If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment." Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir.1992) (citing Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838, 841 (11th Cir. 1985)).
The Court is not obliged, however, to deny summary judgment for the moving party when the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is "merely colorable or is not significantly probative." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the [nonmoving] party's position will not suffice" to demonstrate a material issue of genuine fact that precludes summary judgment. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242). "[C]onclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value," and are legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000). Thus, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial'" and a court should grant summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, (1986) (citation omitted).
Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims on the grounds that (1) the use of force was necessary and not excessive and (2) Plaintiff has failed to show he suffered more than a de minimis physical injury. Defendants argue they are entitled to judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim arising out of the conditions of his confinement because the conditions were not so extreme as to be unconstitutional. Additionally, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff's conspiracy claim is barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. In support of Defendants' motion, they have submitted Declarations from the Defendants; Plaintiff's medical records; and video footage of the use of force incidents.
Plaintiff submitted a response to Defendants' motion, which argues the videos create a factual dispute; there were no justifications for Defendants to use force while Plaintiff was in restraints; there was no justification for Defendants to place Plaintiff on a 72-hour property restriction; and it is the jury's, not the Court's, province to weigh conflicting evidence. In support of his response, Plaintiff submitted his own declaration. Plaintiff's declaration sets forth an almost identical recitation of the events as contained in his amended complaint.
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned agrees Defendants are entitled to judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. First, the videos and medical records blatantly contradict Plaintiff's version of events such that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants used excessive force on Plaintiff. Second, the videos and medical records show that Plaintiff suffered no more than a de minimis injury. Third Plaintiff's 72-hour property restriction did not rise to a constitutional violation. Fourth, Plaintiff's conspiracy claims are barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.
The Eighth Amendment requires that no cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. In Eighth Amendment excessive force cases, the "core judicial inquiry" is "not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Bowden v. Stokely, 576 F. App'x 951, 953 (11th Cir. 2014), quoting Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted) (concluding that a gratuitous beating by prison guards, even without injuries requiring medical attention, violated a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights).
In determining whether the force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, courts consider the following factors: "a) the need for the application of force; b) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; c) the extent of the injury inflicted upon the prisoner; d) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates; and e) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 10 (1992); Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). When considering these factors, the courts "give a wide range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline and security, including when considering decisions made at the scene of a disturbance." Fennell 559 F.3d at 1217 (quotation marks omitted).
As discussed in detail below, the video evidence "blatantly contradict[s]" Smith's version of events. See Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 736 F.3d 688, 692 (6th Cir. 2012), quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-82 (2007). Thus, the Court must "view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape" and cannot adopt the version of the facts offered by the Plaintiff. See Jones, 736 F.3d at 692; Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 (). Viewing the facts as depicted in the videotapes leads the undersigned to conclude that no reasonable jury could find that excessive force was used.
In Plaintiff's amended complaint and declaration, Plaintiff alleges the following regarding the events that transpired on January 28, 2018. On that day, Smith told Defendant Hatton he had a "psy emergency" and that he "wanted to kill [his] bunky and [himself]." Defendant Hatton told him, "you know how it is were going to pull you out and put you back in nothing will be done for you." "[T]hey pulled [Smith] out put [him] in leg restraints, handcuffs and a black box and waist chain and then escorted [him] to see K.O.P. Nurse Williams." When he entered "the room", Smith saw Defendant Wester Smith told Nurse Williams he "wanted to kill [himself] and that [he] was having family problems and hearing voices and if they put [him] back in the room with [his] bunky [he] was going to kill him." Defendant Wester said Smith was not going to do that and that he would "handle" Smith; he then stated he was "going to kill [Smith], that [Smith was] a fuck boy and a pussy nigga."
Defendant Wester "walked up to [Smith] and tr[ied] to push [him] off the medical bed" and Smith dropped backwards so he did not fall. Nurse Williams left. Then, Defendant Wester asked Smith what he was "going to do now no one [could] save [him]." Smith said Defendant Wester "wasn't going to do nothing" to Smith, and Wester then "snatched [Smith] up and pushed [him] out the nurse...
To continue reading
Request your trial