Taylor v. Hale, Case No. 2:09–cv–02285–MEF.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:09–cv–02285–MEF.
• Citation: 909 F.Supp.2d 1320
• Parties: Willie TAYLOR, III, Plaintiff, v. Mike HALE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

909 F.Supp.2d 1320

Willie TAYLOR, III, Plaintiff,

v.Mike HALE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:09–cv–02285–MEF.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Southern Division.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Willie Taylor, III, Brighton, AL, pro se.

James E. Murrill, Jr., Riley & Jackson PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants.

Carolyn Williams Steverson, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant, Federal Agents Jane and John Doe.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Willie Taylor, III, has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that rights, privileges, or immunities afforded him under the Constitution or laws of the United States were abridged when he was booked into the Jefferson County Jail in Birmingham, Alabama.¹ Plaintiff has since been released from custody. Plaintiff names as defendants Jefferson County Deputy Sheriffs Wes Seale, Keith Smith, Barbara Mead, and Deputy United States Marshals Tim Burks and Gail Weiss. ² Plaintiff seeks monetary and declaratory relief. Plaintiff's complaint was originally assigned to United States District Judge L. Scott Coogler in the Northern District of Alabama and, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul W. Greene for a preliminary report and recommendation. See McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 111 S.Ct. 1737, 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991). Before Judge Greene entered his report and recommendation, this case was reassigned to this Court for further proceedings.

On February 7, 2011, Judge Greene entered an Order for a Special Report, directing that a copy of the amended complaint be forwarded to Defendants and requesting that they file a Special Report addressing Plaintiff's factual allegations contained in his amended complaint. (Doc. # 29.) Defendants were advised that the Special Report should be accompanied by sworn statements and, if appropriate, would be considered as a motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Id. By the same order, Plaintiff was advised that after he received a copy of the Special Report submitted by Defendants, he should file counter-affidavits if he wished to rebut the matters presented by Defendants in the Special Report. Id.

On June 6, 2011, Defendants Burks and Weiss filed a Special Report. (Doc. # 35.) On July 8, 2011, Defendants Seale, Smith, and Mead filed a Special Report. (Doc. # 39.) Defendants' Special Reports were accompanied by affidavits and other documents. (Doc. 35 & 39.) Plaintiff was notified that Defendants' Special Reports had been construed as motions for summary judgment and that he would have twenty (20) days to respond, if he chose, by filing affidavits and other material. (Doc. # 49.) Plaintiff was also advised of the consequences of any default or failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir.1985). Plaintiff filed a response on December 14, 2011. (Doc. # 50.)

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not claim that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, nor do they dispute that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and the Court finds adequate allegations supporting both.

III. Factual Background

On April 27, 2009, at approximately 4:45 p.m., Deputy United States Marshals (“DUSM”) Tim Burks and Gail Weiss transported Plaintiff to the Jefferson County Jail for holding until April 28, 2009. (Burks Decl. at ¶ 2, Doc. # 35–1.) One of the deputy marshals uncuffed Plaintiff and handed him over to the Jefferson County Deputy Sheriffs at the booking desk of the jail. Id. at ¶ 3. DUSM Burks proceeded to fill out the relevant paperwork and DUSM Weiss stood by. Id.

Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff Barbara Mead was the booking officer. (Amend. Compl. at ¶ 6, Doc. # 22.) Mead asked Plaintiff for his name, social security number, and date of birth. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff responded to Defendant Mead while standing between the two deputy marshals. Id. at ¶ 17. Deputy Sheriff Wes Seale then stated, “Shake your head again and I'll shake your head from off your got [sic] damn body.” ³Id. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff looked at both deputy marshals and then to Seale who then “choke slammed” Plaintiff to the floor and attempted to drag Plaintiff by his shirt to the holding cell. Id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiff looked to the deputy marshals and asked, “ ‘You all going to let him do this to me[?]’ ” Id. at ¶ 21. DUSM Burks continued to fill out a form and DUSM Weiss did not intervene or say anything to prevent Seale from using excessive force against Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 22.

Plaintiff asked Seale why he was assaulting him. Id. at ¶ 23. Seale forced Plaintiff to the floor on his stomach with a “combination of repetitious blows to the temple, jaw, neck, and ribs as Defendant Smith and other Deputy Sheriffs assisted and kick[ed] and punched plaintiff in his ribs and back area.” Id. at ¶ 24. Plaintiff was handcuffed again and dragged to the holding cell where the beating continued.⁴Id.

Plaintiff could not defend himself because he was handcuffed from behind, so he “begged and pleaded” with the officers. Id. at ¶ 25. Deputy Keith Smith kicked Plaintiff in his buttocks and back as Deputy Seale dragged him and an unknown black male deputy held his legs in the air, attempting to get Plaintiff in the cell. Id. at ¶ 26. The unknown black male deputy “had both of plaintiff['s] legs in the air, while spliting [sic] them and [commenced] to stumping [sic] plaintiff in the stomach and testicle area.” Id. at ¶ 28. Deputy Seale repeatedly hit and kicked Plaintiff in the head, ribs, and neck area.⁵Id. at ¶ 29. Defendant Smith also continued to kick Plaintiff before choking him until he lost consciousness. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff claims that the two deputy marshals remained outside the holding cell “listening and watching” but did not intervene.⁶Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiff claims he did not resist or threaten the officers at any time.⁷ (Pl.'s Resp. at 3, Doc. # 50.)

Plaintiff was stripped of his clothing and regained consciousness when Deputy Smith sprayed mace up Plaintiff's nose and pulled Plaintiff's hair. (Amend. Compl. at ¶ 32, Doc. # 22.) Smith then spit in Plaintiff's face, slammed Plaintiff's face to the floor, and left the cell.⁸Id.

Plaintiff attempted to “regain function but injuries to plaintiff['s] face, neck, shoulder, lower back, ribs, testicle, and hip made it very difficult.” Id. at ¶ 33. After being left in the holding cell for hours without medical attention, Plaintiff asked a deputy sheriff to get a doctor, but the deputy ignored him. Id. at ¶ 34. Later, Smith and Mead came to Plaintiff's cell. Id. at ¶ 35. Smith pulled out his flashlight to examine Plaintiff's injuries. Id. Plaintiff informed Smith and Mead that he thought his ribs were broken. Id. at ¶ 36. The deputies responded that if his ribs were broken he would not be able to breathe. Id. at ¶ 37. The deputies then left Plaintiff's cell. Id.

Later, Deputy Seale returned to Plaintiff's cell with two deputies and asked Plaintiff whether he needed to be handcuffed again. Id. at ¶ 38. Plaintiff replied, “ ‘No, I'm cool.’ ” Id. at ¶ 39. Plaintiff then informed Seale that he is H.I.V. positive. Id. Seale responded, “ ‘I didn't get any blood on me.’ ” Id. at ¶ 40. Seale again asked Plaintiff whether he needed to be handcuffed and Plaintiff replied no. Id. Smith took Plaintiff's prints and mug-shot. Id. at ¶ 43.

Jail medical notes indicate Plaintiff had a small cut to his right thumb, injury to his left eye and temple, and rib pain. (Doc. # 50 at 19–21.) Plaintiff also complained of painful respirations. Id. He was prescribed ibuprofen. Id. at 20.

Plaintiff was allowed to use the telephone before Seale escorted him to the eighth or ninth floor where he was made to sleep on the floor with no further medical care. (Amend. Compl. at ¶ 49, Doc. # 22.) Plaintiff was charged with disorderly conduct. Id. at ¶ 54.

On April 28, 2009, DUSM Weiss and DUSM Josue Almada returned to the Jefferson County Jail to transport Plaintiff to federal court. (Weiss Decl. at ¶ 8, Doc. # 35–2.) Once at the federal courthouse, Plaintiff complained to Supervisory DUSM Floyd Lee about his alleged injuries. (Lee Decl. at ¶ 4, Doc. # 35–3.) He stated that he had spoken various expletives to the booking officer during the verbal exchange the day before and that he became frustrated when he was repeatedly told to speak up. Id. Although Lee did not see any physical signs of injury to Plaintiff, out of an abundance of caution, he decided to have Plaintiff transported to the hospital. Id.

DUSM Weiss and DUSM Almada escorted Plaintiff to Cooper Green Hospital where he was examined. (Weiss Decl. at ¶ 9–10, Doc. # 35–2.) Plaintiff did not sustain any fractures but was diagnosed with a chest contusion and directed to take ibuprofen as needed. (Doc. # 50 at 22–23.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was escorted back to the federal courthouse. (Doc. # 35, Weiss Aff. at ¶ 10.)

IV. Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment looks to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A court should grant summary judgment when the pleadings and supporting materials show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying” the relevant documents that ...