Young v. Scott et al, No. 2:2019cv02393 - Document 52 (W.D. Tenn. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 6/15/2022. (Mays, Samuel) (Main Document 52 replaced on 6/15/2022) (jns).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Young v. Scott et al Doc. 52 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 580 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADRIAN DONTRELL YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. CEDRIC SCOTT, ET AL., Defendants. No. 2:19-cv-2393 ORDER This is a prisoner’s rights case. Pro se plaintiff Adrian Dontrell Young brings constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims under Tennessee law against Defendants Cedric Scott, Lareko Elliot, Dedric Rogers, Demario Pree, and Carlus Cleaves (collectively, the “Defendants.”) No. 23.) Before the Court are two Motions: (ECF Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) and Young’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Additional Motion. (ECF No. 48.) For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and Young’s Motion is DENIED. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 8 I. PageID 581 Background The following facts are undisputed. 1 Young’s claims stem from a March 28, 2019 incident at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Complex (the “Jail.”) Young was being held in the first floor “E-Pod” as a pretrial detainee. (ECF No. 46-1.) Defendants were all officers at the Jail. Cleaves, Elliot, and Pree went to Young’s cell and asked Young to put on a jumpsuit as required by Jail policy. (Id.) repeatedly refused to wear the jumpsuit. Young Cleaves, Elliot, and Pree spent a few minutes trying to convince Young to put on the jumpsuit without success. The officers handcuffed Young and led him to the changing closet. escorted to the closet. closet, Cleaves again Young resisted as he was being Once Young arrived at the changing asked Eventually Young put it on. Young to put on the jumpsuit. When the officers tried to re- handcuff Young, Young struggled and shouted at the officers. (Id.) After a few seconds, Elliot pushed Young back into the changing closet. handcuffed. Young was sprayed, taken to the floor, and Scott entered the closet to help Elliot subdue 1 Young has not responded to Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment. “When a nonmoving party fails to respond to a summary judgment motion in the time frame set by the local rules, district courts in the Sixth Circuit have largely consider[ed] the [moving party’s] statement of material facts to be undisputed for purposes of the instant motion of summary judgment.” Jones v. City of Franklin, 677 F. App’x 279, 285 (6th Cir. 2017). 2 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 8 Young. (Id.) violently. PageID 582 Young continued to resist, kicking and jerking Eventually Young stopped resisting and Pree and Elliot escorted him to the medical examination room. (Id.) The entire incident lasted roughly 12 minutes. On February 5, 2020, Young filed his Amended Complaint, asserting claims of excessive force, assault, battery, negligence, failure to protect, train, and supervise, inadequate medical care, retaliation, and inadequate grievance process. (ECF No. 13.) On September 15, 2021, the Court screened the Amended Complaint, dismissing all claims except the excessive force claim under § 1983, and the assault, battery, negligence, and negligent failure to protect under Tennessee law. 35.) The Defendants’ same day, pending the Motion Court denied for Summary without Judgment (ECF No. prejudice because Defendants had not provided the Court with undisputed material facts and because Young had not yet seen the video evidence on which Defendants relied. (ECF No. 36.) The Court reopened discovery, ordered Defendants to send the video evidence to Young, and reset the dispositive motion deadline to December 30, 2021. (ECF Nos. 35, 36.) The Court gave Young sixty days to respond to any renewed motion for summary judgment. 36.) (ECF No. Defendants filed their Second Motion for Summary Judgment on December 29, 2021. (ECF No. 46.) 3 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 4 of 8 Beginning on January 27, 2022, Young opportunities to view the video evidence. was PageID 583 given nine (ECF No. 50.) On February 2, 2022, Young filed his Motion for Extension of Time to File Additional Motions, arguing that he had not yet seen the video evidence. (ECF No. 48.) 2022 (ECF No. 50.) Defendants responded on May 20, Young has not responded to the Second Motion for Summary Judgment. II. Standard of Review Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court shall grant a party’s motion for 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.” Civ. P. 56(a). the court opportunity Fed. R. The moving party can meet this burden by showing that for the nonmoving discovery, party, has essential element of his case. no having evidence had to sufficient support an See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Viet v. Le, 951 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). When confronted with a properly-supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See “A ‘genuine’ dispute exists when the plaintiff presents ‘significant probative evidence’ ‘on which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for [him].’” 4 EEOC v. Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 584 Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 760 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901, 915 (6th Cir. 2009)). The nonmoving party “must show that there is more than ‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.’” Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt., Inc., 954 F.3d 852, 859 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). A party may not oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by mere reliance on the pleadings. U.S. at 324. Celotex Corp., 477 Instead, the nonmoving party must adduce concrete evidence on which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court does not have the duty to search the record for such evidence. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); See Fed. InterRoyal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1989). “When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported and the nonmoving party fails to respond with a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of its case, summary judgment is appropriate.” Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632, 636 (6th Cir. 2010). Although summary judgment must be used carefully, it “is an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action[,] rather than a disfavored procedural shortcut.” 5 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 585 FDIC v. Jeff Miller Stables, 573 F.3d 289, 294 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). III. Analysis A. Motion for Extension of Time Young argues that he needs more time to file additional motions because he has not seen the video evidence. 48.) (ECF No. He says the video was confiscated as soon as it was delivered to the Jail. Defendants have provided evidence that shows Young has viewed the video on nine separate occasions: January 27, 2022; January 28, 2022; February 11, 2022; February 24, 2022; March 3, 2022; March 24, 2022; March 11, 2022; and March 31, 2022. March 18, 2022; (ECF No. 50.) The nine viewing sessions together lasted more than sixteen hours. (Id.) Young has had ample time to view the video evidence. He was given enough time to see the evidence and respond to the Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Young’s Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED. B. Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants argue for summary judgment on Young’s claim of excessive force because Young cannot show a constitutional violation, and even if he could, qualified immunity shields Defendants from liability. (ECF No. 46-2.) As a pretrial detainee, Young’s claim is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment’s objective reasonableness inquiry, which 6 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 586 turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397 (2015). assesses the reasonableness of a use of force A court from “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” (1989)). Id. (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 A court considers several factors under the objective reasonableness inquiry, including: the relationship between the need for use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting. Id. “On occasion, ‘[t]he maintenance of prison security and discipline may require that inmates be subjected to physical contact actionable as assault under common law.’” Cordell v. McKinney, 759 F.3d 573, 580 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2002)). In those situations, the Court asks “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). Here, it is undisputed that force was used only after Young resisted Defendants’ attempts to re-handcuff him. 7 Case 2:19-cv-02393-SHM-cgc Document 52 Filed 06/15/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 587 Young had been aggressive and belligerent, yelling at the officers who asked him to put on his jumpsuit. Young continued to kick out violently at the Defendants as he was sprayed, taken to the floor, and handcuffed. The use of force here was appropriate and necessary to control the situation. The Defendants showed patience as Young repeatedly refused to wear his jumpsuit. used was applied in a good-faith effort The force to restore discipline, not maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The Defendants did not use excessive force in violation of Young’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Second Motion Defendants have not moved for summary judgment on Young’s claims under Tennessee law, and those claims remain. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Young’s Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2022. /s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
