Judah v. Rodriguez, No. 1:2016cv00265 - Document 27 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 11/10/2016. (c/s to Plaintiff)(jlan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Judah v. Rodriguez Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Lord Judah, Plaintiff, I;16cv265 (TSE/MSN) V. L.M. Rodriguez, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Lord Judah, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Defendant L.M. Rodriguez, a sergeant at Sussex I State Prison ("SISP") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as well as memorandaof law with supporting exhibits. Plaintiffwas given the Notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and the opportunity to file responsive materials pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309 (4tii Cir. 1975). Plaintiff filed a response with supporting exhibits. This matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted in part and denied in part. I. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed. On December 28,2016, there was an altercation between two inmates at SISP. Rodriguez Aff. at Enclosure A; Verf Compl. at %8. Plaintiff was in the shower on the top tier of his housing unit at the time of the altercation. Compl. at 6,7. Id; Verf The emergency button was activated by the officers in the housing unit and the inmates were directed to "lie down on the ground, [and] put their palms facing up." Id Plaintiffdid not immediately comply, therefore, defendant went to the shower and directed plaintiff to get out of the shower." Id; Verf. Compl. at H8. Plaintiff did not immediately Dockets.Justia.com leave the showrer and a K-9 officer was called. exited the shower and laid down on the ground. Id; Verf. Compl. at Id; Verf. Compl. at 9,11. Plaintiff then 13,15. Defendant handcuffed plaintiff, lifted him off the ground, and escorted plaintiff to the restricted housing unit. Id; Verf Compl. at chip his tooth. 16-21. While being escorted, plaintiff hit a wall, causing him to Id; Verf Compl. at 22,23. Lieutenant Allen took plaintiff back to the shower, after which he was seen by the medical staff Id; Verf Compl. at 32. Plaintiff was found to have a chipped tooth, abrasion on the inside of his bottom lip, and a sprained thumb. Id; Feb. 19,2016 Offender Request. Plaintiff was then placed in the segregated housing unit and Officer Gayles charged plaintiff with disobeying a direct order. Id at T16, Enclosure D.. A Disciplinary Offense Report which detailed the charges against plaintiff was provided to him. Id at Enclosure D. plaintiff was found not guilty. Id At a disciplinary hearing on January 12,2016, The hearing officer found that plaintiff"did not comply to [sic] the orders given he did not want to lay down on the floor in the show [sic]. He laid down outside the shower and posed no threat to security during the incident that occurred in the pod being in the top shower." January 19,2016. Id Plaintiff was returned to the general housing population on Id The disputed facts relate to how plaintifTs injuries were caused. Defendant states that, while he was escorting plaintiff, plaintiff "became aggressive, trying to jerk himself free and turn towards"defendant. Rodriguez Aff. at ^ 5. Defendant claimsthat he used plaintiffs "momentum to place him against the wall in order to gain control of the situation" which was "in accordance with [defendant's] training." Id Defendant asserts that he "used only the amount of force necessary to restrain [plaintiff] and maintain control of the situation. Had [plaintiff] kept walking and cooperated with the escort to special housing, it would not have become necessary for [defendant] to put [plaintiff] against the wall." Id. at^ 10. Plaintiff alleges in his verified complaint that he was "walk[ing] a slow pace to avoid a slip and fall" but defendant was attempting to "force [] plaintiff • to walk a faster pace." Compl. at Tit 19,20. Verf. Plaintiff states that he almost slipped, but was able to catch himself, after which defendant "jerk[ed] [] plaintiffs arm back and then deliberately hurl[ed] him face first into a metal door." Id. at ^ 22. Plaintiff claims that defendant "proceeded to bend [plaintiff's] left thumb back, applying pressure that nearly broke it, while at the same time thrusting his fore arm [sic] into [] plaintiffs neck with so much pressure it caused [] plaintiff to lose his bowels." Id at H24. Plaintiff asserts that defendant released him "after Lt. Allen's third command" at which point Lt. Allen told plaintiff "it's all on camera" and escorted plaintiff back to the showers. Id. at 28-32. Plaintiff claims that he not only suffered injuries to his thumb, mouth, and teeth, but that he is also suffering from mental and emotional distress, as well as possible "life long [sic] complications with his neck." Id at 141. Pldntiffhas submitted requests for medical attention related to neck and back pain as well as psychological issues from February through May 2016. Plaintiff has also submitted affidavits from five other inmates. The first inmate stated that he "observed [defendant] ... escorting [plaintiff]," that he "never observed [plaintiff] resisting or not complying with any officers," and that defendant "throw [sic] [plaintiff] into a metal door and pinned him there until Lt[.] Allen rushedup and instructed [defendant] to release [plaintiff]. When [plaintiff] turnedaround [this inmate] observed that his teeth was [sic] chipped and his mouth was bleeding." Everette Aff. The second inmate stated that, while he was lying on the ground, he 3 observed [defendant] handcuff [plaintiff] from the back, then [he] observed [defendant] escorting [plaintiff] to the stairs. Then for no apparent reason, [he] observed [defendant] shove [plaintiff] into a metal door and keep [plaintiffs] face pirmed to the door for about 90 seconds. When [plaintiff] was released [he] saw that [plaintiffs] mouth was bleeding and his teeth was [sic] chipped. At no time did [this inmate] see [plaintiff] resisting. Robertson Aff The third irmiates stated that he saw defendant escorting plaintiff and at no time did [he] see [plaintiff] resisting or causing a disturbance. However, for no apparent reason, [he] observed [defendant] slam [plaintiff] face first into a metal door and then proceed to pin [plaintiff] to Ae door by planting his forearm in [plaintiffs] neck. After Lt. Allen ran up the stairs and instructed [defendant] to release [plaintiff, this inmate] saw [plaintiffs] teeth was [sic] chipped and his mouth was bleeding. Whitfield Aff. The fourth iimiates states that, on the date ofthe incident, he observed defendant "slam [plaintiff] into a metal door while [plaintiff] was already in handcuffed [sic] from the back. At no time did [this inmate] observe [plaintiff] resisting or not complying." Daniels Aff. The fifth inmate states that he observed defendant escorting plaintiff but before they made it to the stairway, [he] observed [defendant] spin [plaintiff] around and slam [plaintiff] face first into the metal door. [Defendwt] then pinned [plaintiff] to the door by slamming his forearm into [plaintiffs] neck. [This inmate] then observed Lieutenant Allen rush up the stairs and instructed [sic] [defendant] to release [plaintiff]. At no time did [this inmate] observe [plaintiff] resisting or not complying to any command by either staff personnel. Subsequently to the assault [he] observed that [plaintiff] was bleeding from the mouth, as he complained about his tooth being chipped. Webb Aff. Plaintiffis alleging that defendant violated his EighthAmendment rights by using excessive force and that defendant violatedhis Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. II. Standard of Review Summaryjudgment "shall be rendered forthwith ifthe pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, ifany, showthat there is no 4 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The moving party bears the burden of proving that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. ^ Celotex Corn, v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). To meet that burden, the moving party must demonstrate that no genuineissues of material fact are present for resolution. Id at 322. Once a moving party has met its burden to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to point out the specific facts that create disputed factual issues. Anderson v. Libertv Lobbv. Inc.. 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986); MatsushitaElec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp..475 U.S. 574,587 (1986). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a district court should consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of that party. United States v. Diebold. Inc.. 369 U.S. 654,655 (1962). Those facts which the moving party bears the burden ofproving are facts which are material. "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts which might affect the outcome of the suit underthe governing law will properly preclude the entryof summary judgment." Anderson. 477 U.S. at 248. An issue of material fact is genuine when, "the evidence... create[s] [a] fair doubt;whollyspeculative assertions will not sufBce." Rossv. Commc'ns Satellite Corp.. 759 F.2d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds bv Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Thus, summaryjudgment is appropriate only where no material facts are genuinely disputed and the evidence as a whole could not lead a rational fact finder to rule for the nonmoving party. Matsushita. 475 U.S. at 587. III. Analysis A. Due Process Claim The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving an individual of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A prisoner's liberty interest is generally limited to being free from conditions that "imposeQ atypicaland significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Connor. 515 U.S. 472,484 (1995). Specifically, a prisoner has protection against the arbitrary imposition of punishment by prison officials. See Wolff v. McDonnell. 418 U.S. 539,558 (1974). He thus has a constitutionallyprotected interest in the procedural due process protections of a disciplinary hearing. Prisoners have a protected liberty interest in the procedural protections provided in prison disciplinary hearings. In these hearings, an inmate's due process rights are satisfiedwhenhe receives advance noticeof the charges againsthim, receives written findings of the outcome of the hearing, and is able to call witnesses on his behalf. Id at 561 -68. However, a prisoner"has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from beingfalsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may resultin the deprivation of a protected liberty interest." Freeman v. Rideout. 808 F.2d 949,951 (2d Cir, 1986); Hanrahan v. Lane. 747 F.2d 1137,1140 (7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was provideda Disciplinary Offense Report detailingthe charges against him prior to his hearing, was presentat his hearing, was givenwrittenfindings of the outcome ofthe hearing, and has made no allegations that he was not able to call witnesses on his behalf. In addition, plaintiff was not found guilty andwasonly held in segregated housing for lessthan one month, thus there was no protected libertyinterest. See Beverati v. Smith. 120F.3d 500,504 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that "although the conditions [inadministrative segregation] were more 6 burdensome than those imposedon the general prison population, they were not so atypical that exposure to them for six months imposed a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"). Accordingly, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted with regards to plaintiff's Due Process claim. B. Excessive Force Claim Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgmentmust be denied with regards to plaintiffs claim of excessive force. In determining whether a complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim that a defendantusedexcessiveforce,the "corejudicial inquiry"is "whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Hudson V. McMillian. 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992); see also. Whitlev v. Albers. 475 U.S. 312,320-21 (1986). "When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decencyalways are violated... whether or not significantinjury is evident." Hudson. 503 U.S. at 9. It requireslittle discussionto determine that defendant is not entitledto summary judgment at this time as there remains a genuine dispute as to the events that occurred while defendant was escorting plaintiff to the restricted housing unit. Defendant's assertions show that he "used only the amount of force necessary to restrain [plaintiff] and maintain control of the situation." On the other hand, the allegations and statements provided by plaintiffestablishthat defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm and the force used was not necessary for disciplinary reasons as plaintiff was compliant and defendant's actions were unprovoked. Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, has met his burden of producing "evidence... [that] create[s] [a] fair doubt," and notjust "wholly speculative assertions." Rossv. Commc'ns Satellite Corp.. 759 F.2d 355, 364(4thCir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds bv Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. 490 U.S. 228 7 (1989). Thus, the motion for summaryjudgment must be denied with regards to plaintifTs excessive force claim. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, defendants Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted in part and denied in part In addition, because defendant, the witnesses, and the records related to this matter are located at Sussex IState Prison, this matter will be transferred to the Richmond Division ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), for further proceedings, including to determine ifplaintiffshould be appointed counsel. An approiniate order shall issue. 2016. Alexandria, Virginia T.S.Ellis, III United States Di^ct Judge
]]>
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.
