David Bacchus v. Lt. Scarborough, No. 11-7254 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7254 DAVID BACCHUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LT. SCARBOROUGH; LT. RICHARDSON; LT. ROGERS; LT. GOODMAN; SGT. JOHNSON; LT. MIMS; SGT. ROACH; SGT. ANDERSON; SGT. SCARBOROUGH; OFC. EPPS; OFC. GERBODE; OFC. SILIMON; OFC. SIMON; OFC. M. WILLIAMS; OFC. YORK; MS. S. ROBERTS; MR. CARTER; MR. POLIETMAN; LT. JUNE; SC DEPT OF CORRECTIONS; ROBERT WARD; DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF OPERATIONS; INSPECTOR GENERAL DAN MURPHY; IGC A. HARDIN; DR. STAHL; NURSE LORIMER; WARDEN PADULA; A-W BELL; A-W BROOKS; MAJOR DEAN; CAPTAIN R. JOHNSON; CAPTAIN THOMAS; LT. HANCOCK; LT. COMMANDER; LT. STEWART, in their official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cv-02857-HMH) Submitted: February 6, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012 Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bacchus, Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: David Bacchus, a South Carolina state inmate, appeals the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the defendants Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) motion for summary judgment. Bacchus complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), alleged numerous violations of his force, Eighth Amendment deliberate rights, indifference to indifference to his medical needs. confrontation with prison including his excessive safety, and use of deliberate Bacchus claims stem from a officials spurred by his violent attack on one of the defendant corrections officers, Lieutenant Cedric June. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration. We review de novo a district court s order granting summary judgment and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). See Robinson v. Clipse, Summary judgment shall be granted when 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). Summary judgment is appropriate unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). 3 I. Excessive force claim. In the prison context, the Eighth Amendment protects inmates from imprisoned. 1996). inhumane treatment and conditions while Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. Eighth Amendment analysis necessitates inquiry as to whether a specific prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective component) and whether the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted on sufficiently serious (objective component). In claimant must component. He must a claim meet for a excessive heavy burden the was Id. application to inmate satisfy of the force, a subjective See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). show that a correctional officer applied force maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm rather than in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. objective Id. component (internal of an quotation excessive marks force omitted). claim is not The as demanding, however, because [w]hen prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated[,] whether or not significant injury is evident. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). To satisfy the subjective component, a claimant must show that a prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable 4 state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). In a claim for excessive force, that state of mind is wantonness in the infliction of pain. Whitley v. Seiter, 475 U.S. at 322. In prison determining whether a official has acted with wantonness, we consider: the necessity for the application of force; the relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used; the extent of the injury inflicted; the extent of the threat to the safety of the staff and other prisoners, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials based on the facts known to them at the time; and the efforts, if any, taken by the officials to temper the severity of the force applied. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). Here, allegations Bacchus solely claim against of excessive force levies June. After careful Lieutenant evaluation of the record, we conclude that material issues of fact exist regarding the nature of the force June used during the altercation with Bacchus. Construed in a light most favorable to Bacchus, the evidence permits a finding that June, while verbally taunting Bacchus, repeatedly used his knee to apply force to Bacchus incapacitated the inmate. head after other officers had The district court, however, premised its findings on the defendants assertion that any application of force by June occurred during efforts to subdue Bacchus. Because the version of the incident proffered by Bacchus could 5 be credited by a reasonable factfinder, we conclude that the district court erred by resolving the differing descriptions of the role played by June in June s favor. this error undermines analysis regarding excessive force the the claim. propriety of subjective We We further conclude the district component accordingly court s of the vacate Bacchus district court s grant of summary judgment on this claim as to Lieutenant June, and remand for further proceedings. 1 II. Deliberate indifference to safety. Bacchus allegation that Lieutenant June. deliberate prison indifference officials failed claim to turns protect on him his from To establish a claim for failure to protect, an inmate must show: (1) serious or significant physical or emotional injury, and (2) that prison officials deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety. exhibited De Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, a prison official must know of and disregard an objectively serious . . 1 By this disposition, we do not suggest that Bacchus claim is meritorious. Rather, on this record, we conclude that it is sufficiently plausible that summary judgment was inappropriate. We do not foreclose the possibility that further proceedings may allow for summary judgment, either on the merits or based on qualified immunity. These determinations, however, are left in the first instance for the district court. 6 . risk of harm. Id. A showing of mere negligence does not qualify as deliberate indifference. Davidson v. Canon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, neither Bacchus nor the record indicates that any prison official knew of a meaningful risk to Bacchus safety prior to his attack on Lieutenant June. Bacchus complaints to prison officials regarding his verbal conflicts with Lieutenant June failed to offer a credible indication that June posed a physical threat to Bacchus. Furthermore, the record indicates that the other officers involved in restraining Bacchus after he attacked June acted appropriately to provide medical treatment to Bacchus. separate the men and Accordingly, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment on Bacchus claim of deliberate indifference to his safety. III. Medical indifference claim. Bacchus failed to raise any objection to the portion of the summary magistrate judgment Therefore, he has judge s on his waived report that claim of appellate court s disposition of this claim. 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007). 7 recommended medical review of granting indifference. the district United States v. Midgette, Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court s order granting summary judgment on each of Bacchus claims except for his claim against Lieutenant June of excessive use of force. As to that claim, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials grant of summary We dispense with legal contentions before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.