Thompson v. Sikes, Case No. 4:15cv253-MW/CAS

• Decision Date: 25 January 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:15cv253-MW/CAS
• Parties: MATTHEW JOHN THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN J. SIKES, SERGEANT J. STRENGTH, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GOFF, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

MATTHEW JOHN THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN J. SIKES, SERGEANT J. STRENGTH,and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GOFF, Defendants.

Case No. 4:15cv253-MW/CAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

January 25, 2017

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 47, on July 18, 2016, and Defendants filed a response, ECF No. 48, to that motion. When Plaintiff filed "objections" to Defendants' response, ECF No. 49, Defendants filed a motion requesting leave to "supplement their motion for summary judgment." ECF No. 50. Instead, Defendants were permitted to file a second amended motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 51. Defendants did so on August 26, 2016. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff filed his opposition to that motion, ECF No. 53, in late September 2016. ECF No. 55. Both summary judgment motions are addressed in this Report and Recommendation.

I. Allegations of the second amended complaint

Mr. Thompson claims that Defendants unlawfully used chemical agents on him even though he was not creating a disturbance. ECF No. 18. Mr. Thompson said the reason this happened was due to retaliation because he had "sent more than 100 grievances" and complaints to both state and federal courts against staff at Liberty Correctional Institution. Id. at 6. Mr. Thompson specifically asserts a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, id. at 8, but a liberal construction of the complaint reveals a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim as well. As relief, he seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id.

II. Legal standards governing a motion for summary judgment

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Thus, summary judgment is proper "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The "party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show¹ the court "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S. Ct. at 2554.

An issue of fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the case. Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). A party must show more than the existence of a "metaphysical doubt" regarding the material facts, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., LTD. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S. Ct.1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986), and a "scintilla" of evidence is insufficient. The court must decide "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Hickson Corp., 357 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). All reasonable inferences must be resolved in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Watkins v. Ford Motor Co., 190 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 1999), if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (cited in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2677 (2009)). "Where 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." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoted in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. at 2677).

"Cross motions for summary judgment do not change the standard." Latin Am. Music Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of the Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, 499 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoted in Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 541 F. Supp. 2d 1295, 1297 (M.D. Fla. 2008). "'Cross motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of another.'" Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n, 483 F.3d 1025, 1030 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting Buell Cabinet Co. v. Sudduth, 608 F.2d 431, 433 (10th Cir. 1979)) (quoted in Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 2d at 1297-98)). Because Plaintiff (as the party with the burden of proof) has a heavier burden on summary judgment, the Court will consider the Defendants' motion first. If Defendants' motion is denied, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

III. The relevant Rule 56 evidence

All three Defendants submitted declarations stating they did not conspire to write a false disciplinary report against Plaintiff, asserting that Plaintiff's allegations are untrue, and contending that chemical agents were administered because Mr. Thompson was causing a disturbance. ECF No. 53, Exhibits B (Defendant Strength's Declaration), C (Defendant Sikes' Declaration), and D (Defendant Goff's Declaration). Each of the three Declarations state that Mr. Thompson was sprayed with chemical agents because he did not comply with orders to cease his disruptive conduct. Each Declaration states that Mr. Thompson was issued a disciplinary report for creating, participating in, or inciting a minor disturbance.

The Use of Force Report states that Mr. Thompson was cursing at staff and yelling down the wing, "attempting to gain the attention of other inmates on the wing thus disrupting the normal operation of the confinement unit." ECF No. 53, Ex. A at 3. The Report states that several officers "attempted to counsel" with Mr. Thompson, but "without results." Id. According to the Report, Officer Goff first attempted to get Mr. Thompson to stop his "disruptive behavior," followed by Sergeant Strength, and finally Captain Sikes. Id. Their efforts were to no avail. Id. At the direction of Captain Sikes, Officer Goff sprayed chemical agents "through the cell door bars towards" Mr. Thompson at 8:55 a.m. Id. at 4. The Report states that the chemical agents had "little effect" and Mr. Thompson continued yelling, cursing, and "attempting to incite other inmates to join in the disturbance he was creating." Id. At 9:02 a.m., Officer Goff again sprayed chemical agents. Id. Mr. Thompson stopped his behavior after the second administration of chemical agents. Id.

Those events took place on the morning of March 16, 2014, in the administrative confinement unit at Liberty Correctional Institution. ECF No. 53, Ex. A at 3. After the use of chemical agents, Mr. Thompson was "monitored for 60 minutes and showed no signs of respiratory distress." ECF No. 53, Ex. C at 2. He was given a shower to remove the chemical agent and placed back in his cell after it was decontaminated. ECF No. 53, Ex. C at 2; Ex. D at 2. A nurse examined Mr. Thompson and found no signs of injury. ECF No. 53, Ex. C at 2.

Sergeant Strength issued Mr. Thompson a disciplinary report, charging him with "creating, participating in, or inciting a minor disturbance. ECF No. 53, Exhibits B, E. The disciplinary report noted that "only after chemical agents were applied, did" Mr. Thompson cease his "disruptive actions." Ex. E at 2. The disciplinary report was approved by Captain Sikes. Id. at 4. Mr. Thompson entered a not guilty plea, but was ultimately found guilty as charged of the disciplinary report. Id. at 1. He was sentenced to 30 days in disciplinary confinement. Id.

Mr. Thompson provided a declaration with his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 47 at 5. Although brief, he declares that "Defendants worked in concert to create falsified documents to conceal the true reason for the use of chemical agent[s] which was to deter [him] from exercising [his] First Amendment rights in court." ECF No. 47 at 5. Mr. Thompson states that on March 15, 2014, he was "removed from a two-man confinement cell and placed in a solo 'PC' [protective custody] cell in preparation for the premeditated assault." Id. After the use of chemical agents, he was "removed for a forced shower" and "returned to the same confinement cell which remained uncleaned." Id. Mr. Thompson also states that he "was made to sign a statement under duress of threats of more abuse by Defendants Sikes and Strength." Id.

Mr. Thompson's reply to Defendants' summary judgment motion is also a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury. ECF No. 55 at 1, 10. He declares there was only one gassing, not two, and reports that Officer Goff directed one "'direct hit' [of chemical agents] to the head/face area." ECF No. 55 at 2, 5. He says that he was "ordered to stay in the shower" by Captain Sikes to spread the chemical agents on his body and "increase his suffering." Id. at 2. Mr. Thompson also states that when he was placed back in his cell, it "remained contaminated!" Id. at 3. He contends he was moved from his cell to an isolation cell on the day before the use of force. Id. On the day in question, he declares "there was no one screaming, or cussing, or causing any disturbance in Y2" wing. Id. Mr. Thompson suggests that Defendants' story that he, a "150 lb. Whiteman," was capable of inciting "Black & Latino inmates to join in the disturbance" is "absurd." ECF No. 55 at 5.

Inmate Michael Canty was in confinement on March 16, 2014, and could overhear the events at issue. ECF No. 55 at 8. Mr. Canty states that "that morning, there was no one screaming,...