Butler v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DARRELL WAYNE BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:18-cv-293-J-32JRK

WILLIAM B. BLITCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________

ORDER

I. Status

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, is proceeding on a pro se

Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) raising claims of excessive force and failure to

intervene against Defendants Blitch, Butler, Lee, and Tomlin. Before the Court

is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). In support of their

Motion, Defendants submitted a transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition (Doc. 59-1),

a use of force packet (Doc. 59-2), a handheld video of the cell extraction, an audio

clip of Plaintiff’s, Sergeant Wesley Rogers’, and Sergeant Austin Merritt’s

interviews with the Inspector General,1 and the Declaration of Dr. Timothy

Whalen (Doc. 59-4). Plaintiff was advised of the provisions of Federal Rule of

1 Sergeant Rogers and Sergeant Merritt were part of the cell extraction team.

They are not, however, named as defendants in this case.

Civil Procedure 56, as well as that the granting of a motion for summary

judgment would result in the termination of this case. See Order (Doc. 8).

Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition (Doc. 76) with exhibits, including his

Declaration (Doc. 76-1), Statement of Disputed Facts (Doc. 76-2), some

discovery documents and Court filings, his deposition, the incident report, and

some medical and mental health records.

II. Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff alleges as follows in the Complaint:

On October 6, 2017 at about 5:45 PM[,]

defendant Blitch approached the plaintiff in front of

the shower on the 1100 side of I-Wing. At which time

defendant Blitch ordered plaintiff to submit to hand

restraints for re-location to the medical clinic for

placement on “SHOS”[2] status.3

Plaintiff Butler then advised defendant Blitch

he would submit to handcuffs immediately following

his personal property being procedurally inventoried

in the plaintiff[’s] presence[ p]rior to being separated

from such. Defendant Blitch refused to honor the

plaintiff[’s] advisement.

Defendant Blitch left and reappeared with a

“Cell Extraction Team,” opened the shower door and

stood outside the shower and allowed and permitted

his subordinates to utilize improper excessive

physical, malicious and sadistic force to deliberately

2 Self Harm Observation Status.

3 Plaintiff had previously declared a psychological emergency and upon a

doctor’s order, he was being placed on SHOS status. See Doc. 59-1 at 4-5.

cause pain, serious harm, and extensive injury to the

plaintiff.

During such unprovo[ked] assault[,] defendant

Blitch eye-witnessed [and] he failed to cease his

insubordinates from illegally beating the plaintiff with

handcuffs and naked fist to which the plaintiff

sustained large gashes, lacerations, permanent

scarring to the face, scalp, etc. and numerous bruises

and abrasions to his left arm.

Doc. 1 at 8-9 (paragraph enumeration omitted). Plaintiff then details the acts

of each Defendant who was a member of the cell extraction team.

On October 6, 2017 defendant Tomlin spoke

death threats of how he was going to beat the

[plaintiff] prior to dressing up in riot gear. When

defendant Tomlin entered the shower dressed in riot

gear on the 1100 side he first began beating the

plaintiff[’s] left hand and wrist with steel handcuffs.

After the defendant Tomlin gained his way inside the

shower[,] he immediately started brutally beating the

plaintiff in the face, scalp, with iron handcuffs which

caused the plaintiff to sustain large gashes, and

lacerations and the los[s] of much essence of life

(blood).

On October 6, 2017 defendant R. Lee entered

into the 1100 side shower wearing riot gear. Once he

entered the shower[,] he started beating the plaintiff

in the face with his naked fist which caused the

plaintiff to sustain a loose tooth and a large gash to the

right side of the plaintiff[’s] right eye.

On October 6, 2017 defendant Butler was the

lead officer wearing riot gear and holding a large

shield. Defendant Butler applied physical pressure to

gain entry inside the 1100 side shower[. O]nce he

made his way into the shower[,] he and the plaintiff

ended up on top of the tile wall and the plaintiff

observed the defendant Butler taking a punch at the

plaintiff[’s] facial area with his naked fist. The

defendant[’s] actions caused the plaintiff to sustain a

blackeye.

On October 6, 2017 after the use of force

occurred[,] Defendants Blitch, Tomlin, R. Lee, and Sgt.

Butler all escorted the plaintiff out of I-Wing[, and]

down the corridor into the clinic for treatment to which

the plaintiff refused treatment due to trauma, but

requested for photos of his injuries and appearance.

But the staff in medical and security denied the

plaintiff[’s] request.

Thereafter, the defendants then escorted the

plaintiff into the shower area inside the clinic and

strip[] searched the plaintiff then placed the plaintiff

into “SHOS” cell A-1102.

Id. at 9-10. As relief, he seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Id.

at 11.

In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argue that they are

entitled to qualified immunity because they were performing discretionary

functions, they did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate a physical injury sufficient to state a claim for

compensatory or punitive damages. See Doc. 59. Defendants contend that

“Plaintiff refused a lawful command to submit to hand restraints,” the cell

“extraction team was called,” and they used force to obtain Plaintiff’s

compliance with a lawful command. Id. at 5. In the Report of Force Used and

Incident Reports, Defendant Blitch; each cell extraction team member,

including all Defendants; and others provided a narrative summary of what

occurred. See Doc. 59-2 at 1-3, 8-17. The narratives are largely the same.

Defendant Blitch was the shift supervisor during the cell extraction. His

comment on the Incident Report reads as follows:

Organized physical force was utilized on

[Plaintiff] due to [Plaintiff] refusing to submit to

handcuffing procedures to carry out the orders of Dr.

George Emanoilidis. Dr. G. Emanoilidis ordered for

[Plaintiff] to be placed on SHOS Status due to his

suicidal gestures. At approximately 5:26PM, LPN K.

Burgin utilized her Crisis Intervention Techniques to

bring [Plaintiff] into compliance with a lawful

command, to no avail. At approximately 5:31 PM,

Warden Barry Reddish was contacted and authorized

the use of forced cell extraction team to carry out Dr.

G. Ema[n]oilidis[’] orders as written to bring [Plaintiff]

into compliance with a lawful command. Camera

Operator #1, Officer Patrick Moore, commenced

filming at approximately 5:43PM. At this time, I

conducted a self-introduction and opening statement.

The forced cell extraction team conducted an

introduction; video recording was continuous until the

conclusion of the incident. I ordered the team members

to utilize the minimal amount of force necessary to

bring [Plaintiff] into compliance with lawful

commands. At approximately 5:45PM, I ordered

[Plaintiff] to submit to handcuffing procedures or the

forced cell extraction team would be utilized to bring

him into compliance, to no avail. At approximately

5:46pm, I unlocked and opened the shower stall door

and [Plaintiff] lunged towards the shower bars causing

the protective shield to strike [Plaintiff] in the facial

area. [Plaintiff] then grasped the shower bars refusing

to place his hands behind his back, so hand restraints

could be applied. Sergeant Tomlin then delivered

several distractionary blows to [Plaintiff’s] forearms

causing [Plaintiff] to relinquish his grasp of the

shower bars. Sergeant Butler and Sergeant Merritt

then forced [Plaintiff] to the back of the shower and

inadvertently tripped over the shower curb causing

[Plaintiff] to strike his head on the back shower wall

and the shower floor. [Plaintiff] continued to provide

resistance refusing to submit to handcuffing

procedures. Sergeant Merritt was able to apply the

right hand restraint. [Plaintiff] continued to provide

resistance by grasping his state issue[d] blue shirt

with his left hand refusing all orders to submit to hand

restraints. At this time, Sergeant Merritt delivered

one closed fist strike to [Plaintiff’s] upper left forearm

causing [Plaintiff] to relinquish his grasp of his state

issued blue shirt so the hand restraints could be

applied. At approximately 5:47 PM, the team members

were able to apply the remaining restraints [and] all

force ceased. [Plaintiff] was assisted to his feet. Upon

arriving on the second floor of I-Wing, the waist chain,

black box and red lock were applied. At approximately

5:52PM, [Plaintiff] refused a post use of force physical

but was visually assessed by RN[] A. Turbyfill with the

following injuries: abrasion to the forehead. [Plaintiff]

received a clean SHOS Shroud and was re-housed in

cell A-1101s, on SHOS status. I conducted a closing

statement and Camera Operator #1 ceased filming.

During the filming, [Plaintiff] alleged that staff used

excessive force during this incident which is refuted

d[ue] to this incident being captured on handheld

camera[. A]t no time was there any wrong doing by

staff. All staff received post use of force physicals with

no injuries noted. At approximately 6:20PM, Warden

Barry Reddish[] was notified of the amount of force

utilized. At approximately 6:26PM, EAC Duty Officer

Angel was contacted and issued EAC#2017-10-28078.

[Plaintiff] received (2) two Disciplinary reports for “6-

1” “Disobeying a verbal order” written by Sergeant

William Fishley and myself. [Plaintiff’s] property was

inventoried by Sergeant Fishley and Officer Sean

Hanson and secured in the property room. A (DC6-

220) “Inmate Impound of Personal property” and A

(DC6-163) “Close management privilege suspension”

was completed. Camera Operator #1, Officer P. Moore,

downloaded the recording to DVD#A-5473. Officer P.

Moore completed a DC1-801 and placed it, along with

the DVD, in the video recording drop box. Forward to

Chief of Security.

Id. at 8-9.

According to Defendant Butler, who was the #1 team member who

entered the shower cell holding the shield, when the cell door was opened,

Plaintiff “lunged towards the shower bars causing the protective shield to strike

[Plaintiff] in the facial area, [and Plaintiff] then grasped the shower bars with

both hands.” Id. at 1. Defendant Butler continues:

I relinquished the protective shield and grasped

[Plaintiff] around the torso with both arms while

clasping my hands and pulled [him] to the back of the

shower cell in an attempt to break [his] grasp, to no

avail. Sergeant Teddy Tomlin then delivered several

distractionary blows to [Plaintiff’s] forearms, breaking

[Plaintiff’s] grasp. At this time, with the assistance of

Sergeant Austin Merritt we forced [Plaintiff] to the

back of the shower stall. Upon forcing [Plaintiff] to the

back of the shower I inadvertently tripped over the

shower curb, causing [Plaintiff] to strike his head

against the shower wall and floor. I maintained my

hold of [Plaintiff] until all restraints were applied.

Once all restraints were applied all force ceased.

Doc. 59-2 at 1.

Defendant Tomlin, who was the #2 team member, stated that when he

was delivering the “distractionary blows” to Plaintiff’s forearms, he

“inadvertently had the hand restraints in [his] closed fist but never made

contact with the hand restraints to [Plaintiff’s] forearms.” Id. at 3. Sergeant

Merritt, the #3 team member, who is not a defendant in this case, stated that

after Defendant Butler and Plaintiff “inadvertently tripped over the shower

curb,” Plaintiff “continued to provide resistance.” Id. At that time, Sergeant

Merritt, “grasped [Plaintiff] by the right arm and was able to apply the right

hand restraint. [Plaintiff] then grasped his state issued blue shirt with his right

hand and refused all orders to relinquish his grasp so the restraint could be

applied.” Id. Sergeant Merritt then “struck [Plaintiff] in the upper left forearm

causing [him] to relinquish his grasp.” Id. Defendant Lee, the #5 team member,

stated that after Defendant Butler and Plaintiff “inadvertently tripped over the

shower curb,” he “grasped [Plaintiff] by the lower extremities and assisted

Sergeant Wesley Rogers in applying the leg restraints.” Id. Defendant Lee

“repositioned [his] grasp and assisted Sergeant Butler in pinning [Plaintiff] to

the shower stall floor. [Plaintiff] continued to provide resistance by grasping his

state issued blue shirt refusing all orders to submit to hand restraints.” Id. All

Defendants agree that once all restraints were applied, all force ceased. Id. at

1, 3.

A handheld video captured the entire cell extraction. The video begins

with Defendant Blitch giving an introductory statement and the cell extraction

team members introducing themselves and explaining their duties upon

entering the cell.4 Each team member stated he was trained in forced cell

extractions. Defendant Blitch advises the team members to use the minimal

amount of force necessary. The cell extraction team then calmly walks in an

organized fashion to the shower cell where Plaintiff is located.

At about the 2:55 minute mark on the video, Defendant Blitch gives

Plaintiff a final order to submit to hand restraints and be housed on SHOS, and

Defendant Blitch advises Plaintiff that his failure to do so will result in the cell

extraction team being utilized. Plaintiff is standing right at the cell door, but he

does not put his hands through the slot to be handcuffed. He says something

but it cannot be heard on the video.

At about the 3:06 minute mark, the cell door is opened and Plaintiff

clearly charges the cell extraction team member holding the shield (Defendant

Butler). Plaintiff is ordered to “stop resisting” while the cell extraction team

members attempt to force Plaintiff back into the cell by pushing on each other.

Although Plaintiff cannot be seen, it is obvious from the Defendants’ positions

and body movements that Plaintiff is actively pushing against them. Defendant

4 Defendant Butler is the #1 person on the cell extraction team. His duties

included using the shield to pin the inmate to the wall or floor until restraints

could be applied. Defendant Tomlin is the #2 team member, and his

responsibilities, along with the #3 team member who is not a defendant,

included Plaintiff’s upper extremities and applying hand restraints. Defendant

Lee is the #5 person. His responsibilities, along with the #4 team member who

is not a defendant, included Plaintiff’s lower extremities.

Blitch ordered the team to push Plaintiff back into the cell and to get the shield

out. Plaintiff is ordered multiple times to stop resisting and to put his hands

behind his back.

Starting around the 3:40 minute mark, Plaintiff is given several warnings

to stop resisting and to let go of the shield. A cell extraction team member

(Defendant Tomlin) can be seen using distractionary punches to get Plaintiff to

release his grasp.5 While using the distractionary punches, Defendant Tomlin

has a pair of handcuffs in his hand. About 7 seconds later (3:47 minute mark),

Plaintiff and some members of the cell extraction team move from the front

corner of the cell to the floor on the opposite back side of the cell, and around

the 3:50 minute mark, the shield is taken out of the cell. Plaintiff is given

multiple orders to stop resisting and give the officers his hand, and one of the

team members announced that handcuffs were on at about the 4:25 minute

mark. Less than 10 seconds later, the leg irons were on and Plaintiff is assisted

to his feet. The entire incident from the time the cell door was opened to the

time Plaintiff was being assisted to his feet was approximately 1 minute and 29

seconds.

5 Plaintiff acknowledges that he was holding onto the shower cell bars, although

this cannot be seen on the video. Defendant Blitch was ordering Plaintiff to let

go of the shield at this time, but Defendant Blitch was not inside the cell.

When Plaintiff exits the cell, he has blood on his head, face, arms, and

hands. Plaintiff is escorted to medical where he refused treatment. He was then

taken to a shower cell, strip searched, given a change of clothes, and placed in

SHOS housing.

Defendants submitted the Declaration of Dr. Whalen, a medical doctor

employed by the Department, who averred that he reviewed Plaintiff’s medical

records. Doc. 59-4 at 1. He asserts that the abrasion Plaintiff received on his

forehead “was noted to be midline and superficial in the subsequent SHOS stay.

There was no mention of a black eye at the initial evaluation or the subsequent

SHOS stay[, and a]t no time was there any mention of a loose or broken tooth.”

Id. at 1-2. On October 31, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. G. Espino. See Doc.

76-6 at 6. Plaintiff had “multiple complaints” but upon examination, Dr. Espino

indicated that there was “no obvious sequelae of any injuries sustained on Oct

6 ‘17 incident” and no treatment was warranted. Id.

III. Standard of Review

“‘Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.’” Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.

2016) (quoting Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc., 764 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir.

2014)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact exists when

the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Bowen v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc., 882 F.3d 1358, 1362

(11th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citation omitted); see Hornsby-Culpepper v.

Ware, 906 F.3d 1302, 1311 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Where the record taken as a whole

could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is

no genuine issue for trial.” (quotations and citation omitted)). In considering a

summary judgment motion, the Court views “the evidence and all reasonable

inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Hornsby-Culpepper, 906 F.3d at 1311 (quotations and citation omitted).

“[W]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its

opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (footnote and citation omitted); see Winborn v.

Supreme Beverage Co. Inc., 572 F. App’x 672, 674 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)

(“If the movant satisfies the burden of production showing that there is no

genuine issue of fact, ‘the nonmoving party must present evidence beyond the

pleadings showing that a reasonable jury could find in its favor.’” (quoting

Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008)). “A ‘mere scintilla’ of

evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be

enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.” Loren

v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Walker v. Darby, 911

F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted)).

Moreover, “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which

is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe

it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a

motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). In

cases involving video evidence, the Court will accept the video’s depiction of the

events if the video “obviously contradicts” the opposing party’s version of events.

See Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010); see

also Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that

“where an accurate video recording completely and clearly contradicts a party’s

testimony, that testimony becomes incredible”). “But where the recording does

not clearly depict an event or action, and there is evidence going both ways on

it, we take the [the non-movant’s] version of what happened.” Shaw v. City of

Selma, 884 F.3d 1093, 1097 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018).

IV. Discussion

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual

punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. “[T]he core judicial 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). “If force is used ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm,’ then it necessarily shocks the conscience.” Cockrell v. Sparks,

510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Brown v. Smith, 813

F.2d 1187, 1188 (11th Cir. 1987)). Courts consider the following factors when

analyzing whether force was used maliciously and sadistically:

(1) “the extent of injury”; (2) “the need for

application of force”; (3) “the relationship between that

need and the amount of force used”; (4) “any efforts

made to temper the severity of a forceful response”;

and (5) “the extent of the threat to the safety of staff

and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the

responsible officials on the basis of facts known to

them.”

Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1375 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). “When considering these factors, [courts] ‘give

a wide range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline and

security, including when considering decisions made at the scene of a

disturbance.’” Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam) (quoting Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1311).

“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments

necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience

of mankind.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10 (internal quotations and citations

omitted). Indeed, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a

federal cause of action.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). “While a lack of serious injury

is relevant to the inquiry, ‘[i]njury and force . . . are only imperfectly correlated

and it is the latter that ultimately counts.’” Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 524

F. App’x 511, 513 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38

(2010)). “A prisoner may avoid summary judgment, ‘only if the evidence viewed

in the light most favorable to him goes beyond a mere dispute over the

reasonableness of the force used and will support a reliable inference of

wantonness in the infliction of pain.’” Stallworth v. Tyson, 578 F. App’x 948, 953

(11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown, 813 F.2d at 1188).

Plaintiff acknowledges that he refused to submit to hand restraints,

because he first wanted his personal property to be inventoried in his presence.

Staff attempted to gain Plaintiff’s compliance before using any kind of forceful

response. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that “security came down . . . and he

ordered me to cuff up.” Doc. 59-1 at 2. Plaintiff made a request to Captain

McCray that his property be inventoried, but his request was “disregarded.” Id.

Defendant Blitch then came and ordered Plaintiff to cuff up, but Plaintiff

refused. Id.; Doc. 1 at 8. Plaintiff further acknowledges that Defendant Blitch

left, and when he returned, the cell extraction team was with him. Doc. 59-1 at

2; Doc. 1 at 8. Before approaching Plaintiff’s cell, at a minimum, Defendants

knew that Plaintiff was refusing to submit to hand restraints to be placed on

SHOS per a doctor’s order and refusing housing.

The video shows Defendant Blitch giving Plaintiff another opportunity to

submit to hand restraints, but Plaintiff again refused. Plaintiff’s own actions

necessitated a need for force. Plaintiff appeared calm when the cell extraction

team approached, however, the video shows that as soon as the cell door opened,

Plaintiff charged the team members. Plaintiff acknowledged during his

interview with the Inspector General’s Office and in his deposition that he was

holding onto the shower bars and Defendant Tomlin used distractionary

punches “to get [him] to release [his] hand from the bars.” Doc. 59-1 at 5.6

There is no dispute that Defendant Tomlin used distractionary punches

to gain Plaintiff’s compliance and that while he did so, he had handcuffs in his

hand. These punches do not appear on the video to be intended to deliver harm.

Sergeant Merritt also acknowledges using one fist strike to Plaintiff’s left arm

to force Plaintiff to release his grasp on his clothing so Sergeant Merritt could

place the handcuffs on his one hand. Despite being in a chaotic situation in a

confined space, the video depicts the extraction team as relatively calm and

professional while attempting to fully restrain Plaintiff. Once it was announced

that handcuffs and leg irons were on, all force ceased and Plaintiff was assisted

to his feet. The entire incident lasted about 1 minute and 29 seconds.

Prison officials followed good practice and videotaped the entire cell

extraction and the aftermath. While the handheld video does not show every

move made by each Defendant or by Plaintiff, it documents the scenario

6 Plaintiff claims that he was holding onto the shower bars because before the

team entered the cell, Defendant Tomlin was threatening him. Doc. 59-1 at 2-

3, 5; see Doc. 1 at 9.

sufficiently to give an objective view of what happened and “obviously

contradicts” Plaintiff’s version of events. Pourmoghani-Esfahani, 625 F.3d at

1315.7

Plaintiff alleges that he had the following injuries: “numerous bruises and

abrasions to his left arm”; “large gashes[] and lacerations”; “los[s] of much

essence of life (blood)”; “permanent scarring to the face, scalp, etc.”; “a loose

tooth and a large gash to the right side of [his] eye”; and a “blackeye.” Doc. 1 at

9-10. However, immediately after the use of force, Plaintiff was taken directly

to the medical unit where he refused to be examined or treated by the medical

staff, so the nurse could only document the injury she could readily see: an

abrasion on Plaintiff’s forehead. Doc. 59-2 at 4-5. Plaintiff obviously has some

injury in light of the blood, but the video does not depict the location of the

injury. The video shows blood on Plaintiff’s head, face, right arm, and hands,

but also shows him walking, including up a flight of stairs and down a long

hallway, to the medical unit after the use of force and getting undressed and

dressed without difficulty.

Plaintiff did not request any medical attention until ten days after the

incident, when, on October 16, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a sick-call request

stating that he “sustained multiple gashes to the forehead, right side of eye, and

7 The location of the video camera was necessitated by the situation. It is not

practical to expect the video camera could have been located inside the cell.

top of the head,” which were causing “dizz[i]ness, blurred vision, [and] excessive

headch[e]s.” Doc. 76-6 at 8 (some capitalization omitted). On October 31, 2017,

Dr. Espino examined Plaintiff and found that there were no obvious

consequences of any injury sustained on October 6, 2017, and that no treatment

was warranted. See Doc. 76-6 at 6.

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor. The

undisputed evidence establishes that Defendants were justified in using force

to accomplish a legitimate security interest, i.e., to obtain Plaintiff’s compliance

with the order to submit to hand restraints, and that, at worst, Plaintiff received

minimal injuries consistent with the amount of force which was necessary to

restrain him. Defendants were forced to react to Plaintiff’s initial physical

attack, and they were required to make split-second decisions to complete their

mission: to gain Plaintiff=s compliance using the minimal amount of force

necessary. Defendants could not predict when, or if, Plaintiff would become

compliant, and even if Plaintiff stopped resisting, staff was still required to

maintain control of the situation in case Plaintiff decided to become aggressive

and/or resistant again. They did this in a confined space, yet they executed their

set protocol in a structured manner and used a reasonable amount of force given

the threat with which they were faced.

“Although [the Court] cannot pinpoint with precision the amount of force

used by [Defendants], the fact that there was no more than minimal injury, that

some amount of force was justified under the circumstances, and that the force

was used for a legitimate security purpose persuades [the Court] that the

evidence in this case raises only a ‘mere dispute over the reasonableness of the

particular use of force’ and could not support ‘a reliable inference of wantonness

in the infliction of pain.’” Brown, 813 F.2d at 1189-90 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S.

at 322). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff shows that

no reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment

rights. Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment in Defendants’

favor.8 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59) is

GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against

Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 79) and Motion to Enforce

Sanctions (Doc. 84) are DENIED. Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions

against Defendants for failing to preserve and/or produce certain evidence,

including fixed wing video evidence, the handcuffs Defendant Tomlin used “as

brass knuckles when he utilized distractionary blows upon the Plaintiff,” and

8 Given that no excessive force was used, Plaintiff cannot maintain a failure to

intervene claim against Defendant Blitch.

the clothing and bedding he wore while on SHOS status from October 6-11,

2017. The Court has reviewed the Motions and Defendants’ Responses (Docs.

83, 85) and finds no basis for granting the relief requested.

3. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 5** day of March,

2020.

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN

United States District Judge

JAX-3 3/5

C:

Darrell Wayne Butler, #419331

Counsel of Record

20