Canady v. Hodges et al, No. 7:2017cv00464 - Document 86 (W.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 03/16/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cl-Ee s OFFICE U,&.DIST. CY RT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED MA2 16 2222 IxTHEvxlIXoSTATSSmslw c' rcoclt' r at, u c UDLEM LERK FOR THS w sslx ltx m svm c'r OF VIRGIXIA Rowxou olw slox M A RL ON C A NA DY , oEe cu x CASE NO .7:17CV00464 Plaintiff, V. G M O R AN D U M O PIM O N M .HODGES,c K , By: Glen E.Conrad Senior United StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. M arlon Canady, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K , filed this civil rights action . pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983. Canady allegesthatprison officials used excessive force and acted with deliberate indifferenceto his seriousm edicalneeds,in violation ofhis constimtional rights. Afterreview oftherecord,the couitconcludesthatthe defendants'm otionsforsllmm ary judgmentmustbegrantedinpartanddeniedinpart. 1. BA CK GRO U ND . In2015,CanadywasincarceratedatKeenM otmtainCorrectionalCenter($:KM CC'').On Jtme25,2015,InmateAmesattacked Canady with aheavy objectin asock.l Canady blocked the weapon with a trash can,foughtAm es,and wrestled him to the floor. Floor officerBostic sprayed Oleoresin Capsicllm ($$OC'')peppergasin the facesofboth inmates.z The OC gas bllrning hiseyes and blurring hisvision caused Canady to clim b offAmesand geton thefloor. Nevertheless,withoutfrstgiving a warning shotorhorn,OfficerHodges in the controlb00th Canady v. Hodges et al Doc. 86 shotCanady in the back ofhis rightthigh with a canister ofO C gas. W hile Canady was already 1 Thesnmmmy ofCanady'sallegations,9om hiscomplaintand hisdeclarationsin supportofhisresponse tothedefendants'summaryjudgmentmotions,ECFNos.1,72-2,and74-1,isstatedhereinthelightmostfavorable tohim asrequiredatthisstageofthelitigation,anddoesnotconstitm eanyfinding offact. 2 OC spray isachemicalagentsimilarto whatiscommonly llnown aspepperspfay ormaceandH itatesa person's eyes,throat,and nose. See,e.a.,Park v.Shiflet 250 F.3d 843,849 (4th Cir.2001)(describing the physiologicaleffectsofOC spray). Dockets.Justia.com on the floor,Bostic sprayed OC gas on Canady's face,eyes,chest,and nnns a second tim e. Canady puthisrightarm up to protectllis eyes from the spray,when he heard a dog bark,and Bostic backed away. W ithoutany verbalwarnings,SergeantBarbetto then engaged his attack dog,Blitz,on Canady twice,shouting forthe inmates to getto the floor,when Canady was already there. Canady suffered dog bites to hisrightforenrm and his rightllip. Bostic sprayed Canady with OC gasathird tim e,wllilehewaslyingfacedown. Am eswasfotmd guilty ofseveralprison disciplinary infractionsasaresultofllisactions and was later transferred to a higher security facility. Canady was not charged with a disciplinary infraction forsghting,because surveillmwe cnm era footageproved thatççhe did not initiatethefight,and only acted to protecthimself.'' Com pl.11,ECF No.1. Afterthe incident,officersescorted Canady and Amesto segregation with anotherofficer flm ing the process with a cam corder. They then placed Canady in a locked showerwith his handscuffedbellindhisback.Bosticdelayedtakingofftùehandcuffsforfvetotenminutesand may also havedelayed calling the medicalunitforevaluation ofCanady'sinjuries. Afterthe officersrem oved hiscuffs,Canady stoodtmderthe showerwaterformorethan an hour. W hen Acting M edicalAdministratorE.W hited reported to the showeraream orethan ml hourafterthe incident,Canady told llim thattheOC gaswasstillbtlrning llissldn. W hited told him çitherewasnothingmedicalcouldbedonefordogbites,andthe(OC)gaswouldevenmally wearoff'' Canady Decl.! 19,ECF No.72-2. W hitedprovided no medicaltreàtment,no antibiotic ointm entforinfection,no m edication forpain,no tetanusshot,and no solution to w ash off the chem icals from the OC spray. He was only concerned with having Canady sign a $5.00 copay form forafuture doctor'svisit. Canady received atetanusshotthe nextday. Canady filedhisj1983 complaintin October2017,suingHodges,Bostic,Bmbetto,and W hited.Canady allegesthefolloiving claimsforrelief:(1)onJune25,2015,defendantHodges used excessive force against Calpdy by firing an OC canister athim when Hodges knew the fighting had stopped;(2)Bosticused excessive forceagainstCanady by spraying him with OC spray multiple timesafterthe fghting had already stopped:(3)Barbetto used excessiveforce againstCanady by engaging lliscahinetwo tim esafterCanady was already lying on theflooras ordered;and(4)W hitedactedwithdeliberateindifferenceto Canady'sseriousmedicalneedsby providing no p edicaltreatm entoq the day of the incident. As relief,Canady seeks m onetary dnm ages. DefendantsBostic,Hodges,and Barbetto have fled a motion forsllmmaryjudgnwnt, supported with affidavits and otherevidence,including surveillance cam era footage,in support of their argllm ents that they used only the am otmt of force necessary to restore orden3 DefendantW hited hasfiled a separate motion forsllnnmaryjudgment,supported by afsdavits andm edicalrecords. Canady hasrisponded to them otions,making them ripefordisposition. II. DISCU SSION . A. Exhaustion ofAdm inistrativeRemedies A prisoner cnnnot bring a civil action concernl 'ng prison conditions until he has Grst exhausted available administrative remedies at the prison where he is consned. 42 U .S.C. j1997e(a). To comply with j 1997e(a),an inmate mustfollow each step ofthe established grievance procedtlre that the facility provides to pzisoners and m eet a11 deadlines within that 3 Thecourtpreviouslygrantedthedefendants'motionstodismissCanady'sj1983claimsastime-barred. Canadyv.Hodaes,No.7:17CV00464,2018WL 3146792(W.D.Va.June27,2018).Canadyappealed.' I' hecourt ofappealsplaced hisappealin abeyance,pending itsdecision in Battlev.Ledford,912 F.3d 708,718(4th Cir. 2019) (applying federalequitable tolling principles to accotmt for time lost during inmate's exhaustion of administrativeremediesasmandatedunder42U.S.C.j 1997e(a)). Undertheruling inBattle,thepartiesfiled a jointmotion forsunzmary reversalofthe court'sdismissalofCanady'sclaimsastime-barred,the motion was g anted,andthecasewasremandedforfurtherproceedings. 3 procedure. SeeW oodford v.Nao,548U.S.81,90-94(2006).A defendantbbarstheburden of proving the affinnative defense that the plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remediesregardinghisclaimsbeforefilingsuit.Jonesv.Bock,549U.S.199,216(2007). W hited contendsthatbefore filing this lawsuit,Canady failed to exhaustadministrative rem ediesregarding his claim sagainstW hited. In supportofthisaY rm ative defense,how ever, W hited offersnothing more than the copiesofgrievances and appealsthatCanady himselfhas subm itted in supportofhis claim s. W hited fails to present any affirm ative evidence of the grievance procedures Canady wasrequired to follow orshowing thatCanady did notfile any otheradm inistrative rem ediesand appealsabouthismedicalcare.Accordingly,the courtcnnnot grantW hited'smotionfordismissalofCanady'sclaimsagainsthim underj 1997e(a). B. The Summ ary JudgmentStandard. The'standard forreview on amotion forsllmmaryjudgmentiswell-settled. Thecourt shouldgrantsummaryjudgmentonlywhenthepleadings,responsestodiscovery,andtherecord revealthatE'there is no genuine dispute asto any m atedalfactand the movantis entitled to a judgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);see,e.g.,Celbtex Com .v.Catrett477U.S. 317,322-23 (1*986);Anderson v.Liberty Lobby.Inc.,47t U.S.242,250 (1986). A genuine disputeoffactexistsçliftheevidenceissuchthatareasonablejurycouldréttu' n averdictforthe nonmovingparty.''Anderson,477U.S.at248.Inconsidering amotionforsummaryjudgment, thecourtm ustview thefactsand the reasonableinferencestobedrawn f' rom thefactsin thelight m ostfavorable to the party opposing them otion. Ld-aat255. To be successfulon a m otion for summaryjudgment,amovingparty ççmustshow thatthereisan absence ofevidenceto support thenon-nioving party'scase''orthatççthe evidence isso one-sided thatone party mustprevailas a m atteroflaw.''Lexinaton-south Elkhom W aterDist.v.City of W ilmore.Ky..93 F.3d 230, 233(6th Cir.1996). W hen amotion forsummaryjudgmentismadeand isproperly supported by afsdavits, the nonmovingparty m ay notreston them ereallegationsordenialsofthe pleadings.Anderson, à77 U.S.at256 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.56(e)). Instead,thenonmoving party mustrespond by . aftidavitsorothem ise and presentspecific factsfrom which ajury could reasonably find for either side. Id.at256-57. W here the plaintiffs version ofevents is so utterly discredited by unchallenged video footage thatno reasonablejury could believe him,sllmmaryjudgmentis appropdate. See Scottv.Harris,550U.S.372,380-381(2007)CTheCourtofAppealsshould nothaverelied on such visible fiction;itshould have viewed thefactsin thelightdepicted by the videotape.');accord 1ko v.Sllteve,535 F.3d 225,230 (4th Cir.2008)(sçEW qhere,ashere,the record contains an tmchallenged videotape capturing the eventsin question,we mustonly credit theplaintiffsversionöfthefactstotheextentitisnotcontradictedbythevideotape.''). C. TheExcessiveForce Claim s. The defendants offer the following evidence in supportof their m otion for summ my judgmentthrough ao davitsandcamerafootage.On June25,2015,atapproximately8:51a.m., Bosticsaw Am esand Canady begin to sght. Heradioed forassistance and instnzcted allinm ates to 1ieon the grotmd. Afteran audiblewnrninghad issued in thepod,Hodgesin thecontrolb00th fired a40 mm single impactrotmd ofOC gasthatstnzck Candy on therightthigh. Atthatpoint, Canady w as on top of A m es,and they both continued to fght. Bostic approached them on foot and orde' red them to jtop fighting. W hen they failed to do so,Bostic adm irlistered a onehalfto one second burst of OC spray to the inm ates'generalfacialareas. They continued to fight. Bostic adm inistered a second burstof OC spray toward the inm ates'faces,buttheir struggles continued. Atthispoint,Barbetto anived with hiscanine,Blitz,and gavethree verbalwnrningsfor Ames and Canady to stop fighting. They kept sghting. According to Barbetto, Canady attempted to lcick Am es,and ashe did so,Blitz engaged on Canady's rightllip. Barbetto told Canady to stop resisting. Instead,Canady sw ung llisleftarm,and Blitz released Canady'slzip and engaged llisleftarm. Video footage reflectsthatBlitzwasengaged on Canady foronly five to six seconds before Barbetto disengaged the dog. Barbetto states that in VDOC facilities, officers use canines when appropriate to help reduce assaults on staffand inm ates by helping security officersto restrain disnlptiveinmatesand otherwise controlinm ate behavior. He states thatoftk ersççdo notallow K-9sto assaultoffenders.'' M em .Supp.M ot.Sum m .J.Barbetto Aff. !5,ECFNo.63-2. After the altercation ended,officers restrained both inm ates and escorted them to the specialhousingunit.Atapproximately 9:55 a.m .,W hited reported to theunitand evaluated boih inmates. According to the accident report,W hited noted no injuries from the dog bite to Canady'sleftnrm and only a smalllaceration from thedog bite to hisrightthigh with a çsscant nm otmtofblood.'' M itchellAff.Encl.C,ECF N o.63-3. Tostateaclaim tmderj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegedçtheviolation ofarightsectlredby the Constitution and laWsofthe United States,and mustshow thatthe alleged deprivation was committed byaperson actingtmdercolorofstatelam ''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). lt is w ell established that only ççthe unnecessary and w anton infliction of pain .. .constittztes cnzeland unusualptmishm entforbidden by theEighth Am endment.''Hudson v.M cM illian,503 U.S.1,5(1992). Onthéotherhand,noteverymalevolenttouchby aprisonguardamotmtsto a deprivation ofconstim tionalrights. Id.at9. W hereofficersapply forcein a good faith effortto restore orderand discipline,there isno excessive force.1d.at6-7. In the excessive force context,the courtmustinquire whether offkials,subjectively, applied force ççin a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or m aliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing hnrm''and whether ççthe alleged wrongdoing was objectivelyharmftzlenoughtoestablish aconstitutionalviolation.''1d.at6,8(emphasisadded). The subjective inquiry considers: (1)the need forapplication offorce,(2)tçthe relationship between thatneed and the nmountofforce used,''(3)the extentofthe injury,(4)ççthethreat reasonqbly perceived by the responsible officials''based on the factsknown to them,and (5) ''any effortsmadetotempertheseverity ofaforceRlresponse.''J-IJ.at7.Toprovetheobjective componentofllisexcessiveforceèlaim ,Canady mustshow' thatthecorrectionaloftk ers'actions . . .. ' - . . . . . . weremorethan aCJde.mizl 'imisuseg)ofphysicalforce.,, 1d.at10. ln short,in considedng an ' . excessiveforce claim,the Stcorejudicialinquiry gis)...thenature ofthe force specifically, whetheritwasnontrivialand wasapplied m aliciously and sadistically to cause hann.'' W ilkins v.Gaddy,559U.S.34,39(2010). Canady alleges'thatthe defendants'uses offorce againsthim a11occurred when he and Ameshad already stopped sghting,and hewason thefloorasordered. Hisallegationsthusstate a claim thatthe ofscersused more than trivialforce to causehnrm ratherthan to restore order. The defendants' testim ony describes an ongoing fightthatcontinued despite their good faith effortsto stop it,firstwith verbalorders,then using the OC m unition round,then the btlrstsof , ' OC gas,and finally,the canine,which convinced the inmates to separate and com ply with orders. These contrasting versionsofeventswould ordinadly presentgenuineissuesofmaterial factmstotheexcessiveforceclaimsthatwouldprecludesummaryjudgmentandrequireatrial. In this case, however, the defendants argue that surveillance cam era footage of the incidentclearly shows that Canady and Ames continued to fightthroughoutthe uses offorce. Canady hasviewed the video footageand doesnotchallengeitsàccuracy. The courtagreesthat the video footage clearly depicts the inm ates fighting when the impactrotmd strikes Canady's 1eg and when Bostic ajpliesthe sistburstofOC spray. Thevideo thussoundly contradicts Canady's allegationsthatthese usej of force were m aliciousbecause they were unnecessary to restoreorder,andthecourtcannctcrediithisportion ofhisaccountonsummaryjudgment. Iko, 535 F.3d at 230. Accordingly, based on the video footage, the cotlrt concludes that no reasonablejury could 5ndthateitheroftheseusesofforce wasexcessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Therefore,the courtwillgrantsummary judgmentasto claim (1) againstHodgesand claim (2)againstBosticastohisinitialuseofOC spray againstCanady. The èourtcnnnot agree that Canady's version ofthe ofscers'otheruses offorce is so inconsistentwith the video footagethatno reasonablejury could believe him. Afterthefirst bttrstofOC spray,the cameras'viewsofthe fghting inm atesare soon partially obsctlred by a bench or officers' bodies. The video is also shot from a distance, m nking it div cult to distinguish when Bostic applies the second burstof OC spray or whatthe inm ates are doing Wàen the dog bites canady. Finding genuine issues ofmaterialfactln dikpute between the parties'accounts,the courtwilldeny the defendants'motion forsummary judgmentasto the remainderofclaim (2)andclaim (3). D . The M edicalClaim s. W hited,relying on the attached m edical records,öffers this account of events in his ao davit. On Jtme25,2015,W hited responded to arequestform edicalassistanceand arrived to find Canady in theshowerarea.According to W hited'sm edicalnotes,Canady reported thathe 8 had been shotin theback ofthehead and bitten by a dog on hisleftann and rightthigh. W hited also noted thatCanady wascomplaining aboutthe continued effects ofthe exposureto the OC rotmd and spray. W hited exnmined Canady and foundno sign ofinjury to llishead orhisleft 0 . W hited observed three areas of broken skin on Canady's right thigh- a one-inch laceration showing a small nmotmt of blood and two sm aller ones that showed no active bleeding. He also saw a sm allmnountofblood on Canady'sboxershorts,butdid notfind any otherinjuriesontheinmate.W hitedencomaged Canadyto conthmerinsingofftheOC residue in the shower. He also gave Canady triple antibioticointmentto apply to llisrightthigh,and the inm atereceived atetmmsshotthatsnm eday. On June 30,2015,anotherproviderexnmined Canady and docum ented thatthe dog bite areawasSdhealing we1l.'' M em.Supp.'Sllmm .J.Ex.A,W hitedAff.! 11,ECF No.58-1. The , ' institutionalphysician exnm ined Canady on July 2,2015,and observed thatthe dog bitewotmd wasGçscabbedup.''J#.at!12.Thedoctorfoundnoneedforadditionaltreatment. An inm ate's Eighth Am endm ent protections against cnzel and tmusual punishm ent include a rightto the m edicalcare necessary to address his sedousm edicalneeds. Estelle v. Gnmble,429U.S.97,103-04 (1976). Specifically,apdson offcial's'sdeliberateindifferenceto an inm ate's serious niedicalneeds constimtes cnleland tmusualptmishment tmderthe Eighth Amendment''Jacksonv.Lichtsey,775F.3d 170,178(4th Cir.2014). The firstpartofthislegalstandard isobjective. Itrequiresshowing thatthe inmate's m edical condition is ççserious--one that has been diagnosed by a physician as m andating treatm entor one thatisso obvious thateven a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.'' JZ The second,deliberate indifference partof the standard is 9 subjective.Theplaintiffmustshow thatthedefendantknew ofanddisregardedanexcessivedsk toinmatesafetyorhealth.Farmerv.Brezman,511U.S.825,837(1994). W hitedarguesthattheinjuriesheobserved on Canady'sbody onJune25,2015,werenot sufsçiently seriousto triggera constimtionalclaim . He'relieson llisown description ofthe size ofthe dog bites and the amotmtofblood he saw. W hited also asserts thathe did notdisregard the risk ofharm these injuriesposed,becausehe provided antibiotic ointmentand the tetatms shot,andencouraged cqntinued showering. In responseto W llited's evidence,Canady presents his declaration. He deniesreporting thatthe OC canisterstnlck him in thè head orthatthe dog bithisleftarm ,becausethe canister struck him in the back ofhisrightthigh and the dog bithim on his rightforeann and hisright hip. Canady derlies receiving any antibiotic ointm ent f' rom W hited. He also complains that Whiteddiénotofferpainmedicationforthedogbites,whichheclaimswereççmuchlargert11a11'' thewoundjW hheé's' nbtesdescribed.Decl.! 19,ECFNo.71-2. On the current record, the courtfinds that Canady has presented genuine issues of m aterialfactin disputeon which a' rationalfactfndercould bepersuadedthatW hited acted with deliberate indifference to Canady'ssedous medicalneedson Jtme 25,2015. Jackson,775 F.3d at178.Accordingly,thecourtwilldenyW hited'smotionforsummmyjudgment. 111. CONCLUSIONJ Forthestated reasons,thecourtconcludesthatthemotion forsllmmaryjudgmentsled by defendantsBarbetto,Bostic,andHodgesmustbegranted astoclaim (1)agaiilstHodgesand claim (2)againstBostic,regardinghisinitialuseofOC spray againstCanady.Themotionmust be'denied,however,as to the other excessive force claim s againstBostic and Barbetto. The 10 courtalsoconcludesthatthemotion formlmmaryjudgmentfiledby defendantW hited mustbe denied. Thecourtwilldirecttheclerk to schedule,theremaiqing claim sfortrial. An appropriateorderwilleùterthisday. # ENTER:This 16 dayofMarch,2020. Seni rUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
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.
