Valdes v. Crosby

• Decision Date: 31 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-13065.,05-13065.
• Citation: 450 F.3d 1231
• Parties: Mario VALDES, individually, and as personal representative of the estate of Joy Francis "Frank" Valdes, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James CROSBY, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, Tim Giebeig, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

450 F.3d 1231

Mario VALDES, individually, and as personal representative of the estate of Joy Francis "Frank" Valdes, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James CROSBY, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant, Tim Giebeig, et al., Defendants.

No. 05-13065.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 31, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kevin Anthony Blazs, Michael D. Kendall, Ronald S. Wasilenko, Gobelman, Love, Gavin, Blazs & Wasilenko, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Stuart M. Address, Guy Bennett Rubin, Rubin & Rubin, Stuart, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and GOODWIN^*, Circuit Judges.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

This is an interlocutory appeal by James V. Crosby, former warden of Florida State Prison ("FSP"),¹ from the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Mario Valdes sued Crosby and several other FSP employees, alleging, inter alia, that they violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of his son, Frank Valdes ("Valdes"), by subjecting him to an excessive and unjustified use of force, which led to his death while he was incarcerated at FSP.²

While Crosby was the warden of FSP, Valdes was a death row inmate housed on X-wing, where inmates with the most serious disciplinary problems were assigned. Valdes had been transferred to FSP after killing a guard at another Florida correctional institution. On July 17, 1999, Valdes died after having suffered extensive beating wounds all over his body. The second amended complaint alleged that prison guards beat Valdes to death, and that Crosby knew about the general propensity for violence against inmates at FSP, especially by certain corrections officers, some of whom were involved in the beating of Valdes, but that Crosby was deliberately indifferent to the risk of abuse. Crosby moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and Crosby now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

While the general rule is that a denial of summary judgment is not ordinarily subject to immediate appellate review because it is not an appealable final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, "[a] district court's order denying a defense of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to the extent that it turns on a question of law." Cook v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 414 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.1996)) (emphasis added). We may review an interlocutory appeal "so long as the core qualified immunity issue is raised on appeal, a final, collateral order is being appealed, and the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the case, including challenges to the district court's determination that genuine issues of fact exist as to what conduct the defendant engaged in." McMillian, 88 F.3d at 1563.

For the purposes of an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, we accept the district court's factual determinations and recite those facts as set forth in the district court's order, supplementing them where necessary with additional evidentiary findings of our own from the record. See Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir.2001) (citing Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) ("[T]he court of appeals can simply take as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment.")). Where we supplement the record, we construe the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir.2005).

DISCUSSION

As we have often stated, "[q]ualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1193-94 (11th Cir.2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In order to receive the protection of qualified immunity, the government official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred. Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir.2002)).³

Once eligibility for qualified immunity is established, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194. This step consists of a two-part inquiry, set forth in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). First, we ask, "do the facts alleged show the government official's conduct violated a constitutional right?" Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. If a constitutional violation is established, based on the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we then must determine whether such conduct would have violated federal law that was clearly established at the time of the incident. Garrett v. Athens-Clarke County, 378 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151).

I. Violation of a Constitutional Right

We first address the question of whether Crosby violated Valdes' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. "The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "In its prohibition of `cruel and unusual punishments,' the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive physical force against prisoners." Id. "Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Id. at 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

We have held that supervisors can be held liable for subordinates' use of excessive force against inmates in violation of the Eighth Amendment on the basis of supervisory liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248, 1261 (11th Cir.2004). Supervisory liability under § 1983 occurs "when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between the actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation." Id. We agree with the district court that there is insufficient evidence that Crosby personally participated in the beating of Valdes, or that any guards were following specific direction from Crosby in using excessive force against Valdes. Thus, the question presented is whether there was a causal connection between Crosby's actions or inaction and the beating and death of Valdes.

A causal connection may be established when: 1) a "history of widespread abuse" puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he or she fails to do so; 2) a supervisor's custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights; or 3) facts support an inference that the supervisor directed subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.2003).⁴

Therefore, we begin our analysis by addressing whether the district court erred in concluding that sufficient facts were presented to support liability against Crosby through a causal connection between his actions and the alleged constitutional deprivation committed by Crosby's subordinates.

A.

The facts, construed in the light most favorable to Valdes, the nonmoving party, are as follows. Corrections Officer Raymon Hanson testified that on July 17, 1999, he was told to assist in the cell extraction of Frank Valdes, whom he knew was on death row for killing a guard at another facility during an escape attempt. Hanson testified that while he was preparing for the extraction, Sergeant Griffis told Captain Timothy Thornton that "Valdes has had this coming to him." Based on his past experience participating in cell extractions, Hanson took this statement to mean that the officers "were going to go down there and teach [Valdes] that he can't be threatening officers and he has to comply with the rules, that being on disciplinary confinement wasn't enough, that some physical punishment was going to have to be inflicted on him."

When Valdes' cell door was opened, Hanson, one of the first to enter, noticed Valdes was standing in the center of the cell holding a towel to his face and only wearing boxer shorts. Valdes then curled up on the floor in a fetal position, with his hands covering his face and head. Valdes was not resisting or acting aggressively, and no weapons were visible in his cell. Hanson testified that when he moved to put his shield on the cell bunk, the other officers began punching, striking and kicking Valdes, who remained on the ground, not resisting. Valdes was turned onto his stomach and Hanson then stood on Valdes' legs to prevent Valdes from kicking anyone while the other officers continued punching him. Hanson left the cell because he was having difficulty breathing due to gas fumes that were released in the cell.

After getting a towel to wipe his face, Hanson returned to the cell where he saw Sergeant Brown violently kicking Valdes in the midsection, while saying to Valdes, "[w]ho you gonna kill now, [expletive]?" Valdes was moved to the doorway...