The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KEVIN CHANDLER,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-958-DRL
MARCUS THOMPSON et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Kevin Chandler, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case against
Sgt. Marcus Thompson and Sgt. Walter Taylor for compensatory and punitive damages
for using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF 7 at 3. Specifically,
Mr. Chandler alleged in his complaint that Sgt. Thompson and Sgt. Taylor used excessive
force against him while he was handcuffed and not resisting by shoving him into a wall,
throwing him to the ground, and cutting off his breathing until he passed out. ECF 6 at
2-4. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they did not use
excessive force against Mr. Chandler. ECF 40. Mr. Chandler filed a response, and the
defendants filed a reply. ECF 52, 54. The summary judgment motion is now fully briefed
and ripe for ruling.
Summary judgment must 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). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment
inappropriate; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. To
determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in that party’s favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). A party opposing
a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or
denials in its own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the court with the
evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d
651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010).
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain”
on prisoners. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). To survive summary judgment, a
plaintiff must put forth evidence that “support[s] a reliable inference of wantonness in
the infliction of pain.” Id. at 322. The core requirement for an excessive force claim is that
the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th
Cir. 2009). In determining whether the intent was malicious, relevant factors include how
much force was needed versus how much was actually used; the extent of injury inflicted;
whether the force was needed because of a risk to someone’s safety; and whether the
officers made efforts to limit the severity of the force. McCottrell v. White, 933 F.3d 651,
663 (7th Cir. 2019).
Sgt. Thompson has one view. On May 7, 2020, Sgt. Thompson was involved in
transporting Mr. Chandler from a holding cell back to his cell. ECF 40-1 at 1. At the
holding cell, Sgt. Thompson observed Mr. Chandler refuse an order from Officer Justin
Pribble to turn around so a lead could be attached to his handcuffs. Id. at 1-2. Sgt.
Thompson took the lead from Officer Pribble and ordered Mr. Chandler to turn around
so the lead could be attached to the handcuffs, but Mr. Chandler again refused to turn
around. Id. at 2. Because Mr. Chandler was refusing orders, Sgt. Thompson requested
assistance from Sgt. Taylor. Id.
Sgt. Taylor unlocked the holding cell door and Mr. Chandler walked out with Sgt.
Thompson, Sgt. Taylor, and Officer Pribble escorting him. Id. At the bottom of the stairs,
Mr. Chandler became passively resistant by stopping and then headbutted Sgt.
Thompson in the face. Id. Mr. Chandler was placed on the ground to gain control over
the situation, and then picked back up so the transport could continue. Id. Mr. Chandler
again became resistant and was again placed on the ground so leg shackles could be
applied. Id. Once Mr. Chandler was placed in leg shackles, he was escorted without
further incident. Id.
Mr. Chandler attests to a substantially different version of facts. ECF 52-1.
Specifically, Mr. Chandler attests he was handcuffed in a holding cell when Sgt.
Thompson entered the cell, threw him against the wall, and slammed his head into the
wall. Id. at 1. Mr. Chandler attests he was not resisting orders or posing any threat at the
time of Sgt. Thompson’s use of force. Id. Sgt. Thompson then dragged Mr. Chandler to
the stairs where he and Sgt. Taylor picked him up and slammed him on the stairs. Id. at
1-2. Once Mr. Chandler was on the ground, Sgt. Taylor put his fist into his throat to
prevent him from breathing, and Sgt. Thompson put all of his weight into his back with
his knee until he blacked out. Id. at 2. There are thus disputed facts regarding what
amount of force the defendants used against Mr. Chandler and whether Mr. Chandler
was resisting at the time of the use of force.
The defendants argue summary judgment is warranted in their favor for three
reasons. However, the defendants base all three of these arguments only on their version
of the facts, which Mr. Chandler disputes. First, the defendants argue they used only de
minimis force against Mr. Chandler. ECF 42 at 6-8. But a reasonable jury could credit Mr.
Chandler’s testimony that the defendants threw him against a wall, slammed his head
into the wall, and prevented him from breathing until he blacked out, which is more than
a de minimis use of force.
Second, the defendants argue they used force in a good faith effort to maintain and
restore discipline, not maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Id. at 8-12. But a
reasonable jury could credit Mr. Chandler’s testimony that the defendants used force
against him while he was handcuffed and not resisting and conclude they used force
sadistically to cause harm.
Third, the defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their
conduct was not clearly unconstitutional, as they used force in good faith to restore order.
Id. at 12-14. But as discussed, a reasonable jury could credit Mr. Chandler’s version of
events and conclude the defendants clearly violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
slamming him into a wall and preventing his breathing until he blacked out. Accordingly,
because there are disputed material facts regarding whether the defendants violated Mr.
Chandler’s Eighth Amendment rights, the defendants are not entitled to summary
judgment.
For these reasons, the court DENIES the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF 40).
SO ORDERED.
April 19, 2023 s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court