Williams v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

5:19-cv-00044-MR

EDWARD WILLIAMS, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

FNU SICIAK, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________ )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. [Doc. 40].

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pro se Plaintiff Edward Williams, III (“Plaintiff”), is a North Carolina

inmate currently incarcerated at Pender Correctional Institution in Burgaw,

North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on April 18, 2019, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Susan White, identified as the

Superintendent of Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”); FNU

Siciak,1 identified as the Blue Unit Manager at Alexander; Thomas M. Moore,

identified as a correctional officer at Alexander; and “John Doe,” identified as

1 Documents filed by Defendant Siciak reflect that his true full name is Arthur Siciak. [Doc.

42-1]. The Court will instruct the Clerk to update the docket accordingly.

a correctional officer at Alexander. [Doc. 1 at 2-3]. Plaintiff claimed that

Defendants used excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment

in forcing Plaintiff to be handcuffed behind his back despite Plaintiff’s pre-

existing medical condition that rendered him physically unable to do so and

by denying Plaintiff medical care after the incident.2 [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff’s

claims survived initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

[Doc. 10].

Defendant Siciak, who was sued in his individual capacity only, timely

filed an executed waiver of service. [Doc. 13; Doc. 1 at 2]. On September

8, 2020, after proper notice, the Court dismissed Defendants White, Moore,

and Doe without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve these

Defendants. [Doc. 35]. On November 16, 2020, Defendant Siciak moved

for summary judgment. [Doc. 40]. In support of his motion, Defendant

submitted a memorandum, an affidavit, Plaintiff’s offender information sheet,

Alexander’s Restraint Procedures Policy, and Plaintiff’s Medical Duty Status

form. [Docs. 41, 42, 42-1 to 42-4]. On November 17, 2020, the Court

2 Plaintiff also purported to bring a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, which passed

initial review but was not specifically addressed in the Court’s Order. [See Doc. 10 at 6-

7 n. 1]. Plaintiff, however, has abandoned this claim on summary judgment and the Court

will dismiss it.

entered an order in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the requirements for filing a response to

the summary judgment motion and of the manner in which evidence could

be submitted to the Court. [Doc. 43]. Plaintiff timely responded to

Defendant’s motion. [Docs. 44, 45]. Plaintiff submitted multiple affidavits; a

brief; Plaintiff’s physical therapy treatment notes; other medical records; the

Incident Report, which included witness statements; Alexander’s Use of

Force Policy; what appears to be a portion of the N.C. Department of Public

Safety’s (NCDPS) Use of Force Policy, and Defendant’s discovery

responses. [Docs. 44, 44-1, 44-2, 45].

This matter is now ripe for adjudication.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall be granted “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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is

genuine “if 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). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under

governing law. Id.

The movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the district court

of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)

(internal citations omitted).

Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving

party. The nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there

is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3. The nonmoving party may not

rely upon mere allegations or denials of allegations in his pleadings to defeat

a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 324. Rather, the nonmoving party

must oppose a proper summary judgment motion with citation to

“depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

declarations, stipulations …, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other

materials” in the record. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). Namely, the

nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence from which “a reasonable

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at

248; accord Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert County, Md., 48 F.3d 810, 818 (4th

Cir. 1995).

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the

evidence and any inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. “‘Where the record taken

as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving

party, there is no genuine issue for trial.’” Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct.

2658, 2677 (2009) (quoting Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986)).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The forecast of evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant

is as follows:

Plaintiff was transferred to Alexander from Marion Correctional

Institution in or around February 2016 for physical therapy. [Doc. 44-2 at ¶

1: Williams Dec.]. Plaintiff had broken his arm in 2014 and it his right elbow

healed at a 90-degree angle. [Id.]. Plaintiff wore a sling with metal inserts

at all times to protect his elbow. He took the sling off only to shower, to sleep,

and for physical therapy. [Doc. 44-2 at ¶ 2]. Plaintiff had 10 visits with the

physical therapist at Alexander between March 14, 2016 and April 13, 2016.

Plaintiff had approval for his sling that expired on March 5, 2016. On

Plaintiff’s first visit with the physical therapist at Alexander on March 14,

2016, Plaintiff asked to renew the approval for the sling and for a second

pillow. [Doc. 45 at 2]. On April 14, 2016, after ten visits, Plaintiff “met

potential” with physical therapy. The physical therapist ordered that he be

discharged from care and referred Plaintiff to an orthopedist. [Doc. 45 at 12-

13]. In the referral order to the orthopedist, the physical therapist noted, “Pt.

has been Compliant [with] all [physical therapy] sessions & attempted all

asked of him. He has very limited [range of motion] in elbow & [range of

motion] causes extreme pain.” [Doc. 45 at 13].

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff remained at Alexander waiting to be

transferred back to Marion after having completed physical therapy. [Doc.

45 at ¶ 4]. Defendant Siciak was employed by the NCDPS as a Correctional

Officer at Alexander at the relevant times and had been employed by the

NCDPS since 2007. [Doc. 42-1 at ¶ 1: Siciak Dec.]. Siciak was overseeing

the operations of the Blue Unit at Alexander that day. [Id. at ¶ 4].

At approximately 10:00 a.m., a fight started in the dayroom. Inmates

were told to go to their assigned cells and lockdown. [Doc. 45 at ¶¶ 4-5].

Siciak was told by floor staff that Plaintiff was involved in the fight. [Doc. 42-

1 at ¶ 5]. All inmates suspected of misconduct are to be placed in restrictive

housing pending an investigation. After the fight, Siciak, therefore, went to

Plaintiff’s cell with other correctional officers at approximately 10:05 a.m. to

escort Plaintiff to restrictive housing. [Id. at ¶ 6].

Alexander’s Custody and Operations: Restraint Procedures Policy,

Section .0427 (“Restraint Policy”), governs the method of handcuffing an

inmate when he needs to be let out of his cell for some reason. [Doc. 42-1

at ¶ 7]. The Restraint Policy provides that any general population inmate

who must be placed in hand restraints is required to be handcuffed behind

his back through the trapdoor of that inmate’s cell unless there are medical

restrictions that require an inmate to be handcuffed in front. [Id. at ¶ 8]. Any

such medical restrictions would be noted on an inmate’s HS51 medical

restrictions screen in the NCDPS computer system. [Id. at ¶ 8]. If an inmate

is wearing a sling, Siciak “would not order that inmate to be handcuffed

behind his back.” [Id. at ¶ 9]. In that case, Siciak would order the inmate to

be handcuffed in front. [Id.].

When Siciak approached Plaintiff’s cell, Plaintiff was sitting in a chair

with his right arm in a sling. [Doc. 45 at ¶ 6]. Defendant Siciak and former

Defendants Moore and Doe stood outside Plaintiff’s door and asked Plaintiff

to submit to handcuffs through the trapdoor, which was unlocked. [Id. at ¶¶

6-7]. Plaintiff stood up from his chair and explained that he was not involved

in the fight. Plaintiff also explained that his arm was in a sling because it

“was stuck in a 90[-]degree angle and couldn’t flex in a position to handcuff

[Plaintiff] from the back.” [Doc. 44-2 at ¶ 7]. Defendant Siciak again ordered

Plaintiff to turn around and submit to handcuffs. At that time, Plaintiff

removed his sling and politely asked to be handcuffed in the front because

his arm could not flex in a position for Plaintiff to be handcuffed from behind.

[Id. at ¶ 9]. Plaintiff has presented evidence that Siciak refused. Siciak has

presented evidence to the contrary, that he would not order an inmate in a

sling to be handcuffed from behind. [Id.; see Doc. 42-1 at ¶ 9]. Siciak knew

that Plaintiff has a serious medical condition and that he would be hurt if he

was handcuffed behind his back, but Siciak ordered the officers to do it

anyways. [Id. at ¶ 15]. Moore and Doe then “snatched up and twisted”

Plaintiff’s arms “yanking them through the high trap door” and cuffed Plaintiff.

[Id.]. Plaintiff was standing on his toes “hollering in pain, as [his] right

shoulder dislocated and [his] elbow popped.”3 [Id.]. Plaintiff was taken to

segregation by Moore and Doe. [Id.]. Plaintiff was made to painfully strip

out of his clothes. [Id.]. He noticed that his arm was swollen and asked for

medical assistance, which he did not receive. [See id.]. Siciak was not

involved in and did not deny Plaintiff medical care in segregation or otherwise

3 Defendant has presented a forecast of evidence that “no force was required to handcuff

Plaintiff behind his back through the trapdoor” and that Plaintiff showed no signs of

distress and made no complaints of pain after he was cuffed. [Doc. 42-1 at ¶¶ 15-16].

and did not consciously or intentionally disregard an excessive risk to

Plaintiff’s medical treatment.4 [See Doc. 42-1 at ¶¶ 17-18].

After an investigation of the dayroom fight was conducted, including

review of the video footage, Plaintiff was released from segregation. [Doc.

44-2 at ¶ 10]. Plaintiff again complained of “extreme pain.” He was taken to

medical and seen by Nurse Christina Fox. [Id. at ¶ 10]. Nurse Fox became

alarmed by Plaintiff’s injuries, which appeared consistent with Plaintiff’s

elbow having been refractured, and sent Plaintiff to main medical. [Id. at ¶

10]. At main medical, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Marta Kalinski. [Id. at ¶ 11].

In the record for this visit, Dr. Kalinski noted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints:

Patient sustained trauma to his right upper extremity

during placement of handcuffs. Patient came to

Alexander for R-elbow [physical therapy]. In 01/2014

patient sustained fracture to his R-elbow. After

fracture, he did not have cast or surgical repair.

Patient developed R-elbow [range of motion]

limitation and progressive arthritis. His R-elbow

became permanently locked at 130 degrees. Patient

did not benefit from [physical therapy] and his current

plan was to be evaluated for corrective surgery at

[Central Prison]-Ortho.

4 According to NCDPS Use of Force Policy, the Officer-in-Charge, which was Captain

Hamilton at the time of the subject incident, has each inmate involved in a use of force

incident medically screened and determines whether imminent immediate medical

attention is required. [Doc. 45 at 36-37, 57]. Here, however, Defendant maintains that

this was not a Use of Force incident and Use of Force procedures, therefore, were not

followed. [Id. at 58, 61; see id. at 59].

[Doc. 45 at 30]. Dr. Kalinski noted that Plaintiff had “diffuse swelling around

elbow joint,” “tenderness to even light palpation,” and “totally restricted

[range of motion] active and passive.” [Id.]. She administered a shot of pain

medication and ordered that Plaintiff be seen at an outside hospital. [Doc.

44-2 at ¶ 11; Doc. 45 at 30-32].

Plaintiff was taken to Catawba Valley Medical Center (CVMC) for

examination. [See Doc. 45 at 33-35]. At the CVMC emergency room,

Plaintiff reported to the provider that when he was being handcuffed “he felt

like his shoulder popped out of place [and] his left arm was being twisted and

he felt pain in his right elbow.” [Id. at 33]. Examination showed mild

discomfort surrounding Plaintiff’s right shoulder and some discomfort over

the posterolateral aspect on his right elbow. [Id. at 34]. While X-rays of

Plaintiff’s right shoulder were unremarkable, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a

shoulder sprain and the provider suggested that Plaintiff “certainly could

have dislocated [his] shoulder and this reduced.” [Id. at 34-35; see Doc. 44-

2 at ¶ 12]. X-rays of Plaintiff’s right elbow showed “[s]mall joint effusion with

elevation of anterior fat pad.” [Id. at 34]. The radiologist noted that, “[a]

fracture is not confidently visualized, however, a joint effusion raise[s]

suspicion for radiographically occult fracture.” [Id.]. Plaintiff was provided a

sling and directed to use ice compresses and take Motrin for pain. [Doc. 45

at 35]. Plaintiff was returned to Alexander the same day. [See Doc. 44-2 at

¶¶ 13-14].

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Excessive Force

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual

punishments,” U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, and protects prisoners from the

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,

319 (1986). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must

satisfy both an objective component – that the harm inflicted was sufficiently

serious – and a subjective component – that the prison official acted with a

sufficiently culpable state of mind. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761

(4th Cir. 1996).

This subjective standard requires proof of malicious or sadistic action

by a prison official to make out an excessive force claim. This is because

prison “[o]fficials are entitled to use appropriate force to quell prison

disturbances.” Williams, 77 F.3d at 761. “Because officials must act ‘in

haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance,’

deliberate indifference is not a sufficiently rigorous standard.” Id. (citing

Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320). “Rather, in these circumstances, in order to make

out an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that officials

applied force maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing

harm.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Here, the relevant forecast of evidence shows Defendant Siciak

directed two correctional officers to handcuff Plaintiff in a manner that was

contrary to policy and which caused Plaintiff significant pain and physical

injury in the face of knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition and with

Plaintiff’s arm in a sling. The forecast of evidence also shows that Plaintiff

was calm, composed, and of no threat to Defendant or the other officers. As

such, the manner of the use of force under the circumstances suggests that

it was applied “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing

harm” and not in a haste to “quell prison disturbance.” Williams, 77 F.3d at

761. Moreover, while serious injury is not required to support an excessive

force claim, Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38 (2010), Plaintiff’s injuries were

sufficiently serious to call into question Defendant’s evidence that Plaintiff

was not in distress and did not complain of being in pain after the handcuffs

were applied.

As such, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

on Plaintiff’s claim based on the use of excessive force in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.

B. Deliberate Indifference

A violation of the Eighth Amendment based on the deliberate

indifference to a serious medical “requires a showing that the defendants

actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious injury to the

detainee or that they actually knew of and ignored a detainee’s serious need

for medical care.” Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 575-76 (4th

Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). “To establish that a health care provider’s

actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the

treatment must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to

shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v.

Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990).

To be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a prison official,

however, must know of and consciously or intentionally disregard “an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994); Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998).

Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A prison official, however, is not liable if

he knew the underlying facts but believed, even if unsoundly, that the risk to

which the facts gave rise was insubstantial or nonexistent. Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 837.

Plaintiff claims that Siciak was deliberately indifferent in forcing Plaintiff

to submit to handcuffs behind his back and in the delay in medical care

provided to Plaintiff after the incident. [Doc. 1 at 8-10]. As to the claim

involving post-incident medical care, Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient

evidence to survive summary judgment. The forecast of evidence shows

that Siciak was not involved in the transfer of Plaintiff to segregation or in the

denial of immediate medical care there. Plaintiff, however, has forecast

sufficient evidence showing that Siciak “knew of and disregarded a

substantial risk of serious injury” to Plaintiff in ordering that Plaintiff be

handcuffed from behind given Plaintiff’s medical condition. See Bane v.

Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, 267 F.Supp.2d 514 (W.D. Va. June 6, 2003)

(finding fact issues remained on inmate’s deliberate indifference claim that

prison official defendant ordered inmate to be handcuffed from behind

despite medical waiver requiring that inmate be cuffed in front). As such,

summary judgment will be granted on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim

based on the post-incident medical care, but not as to Siciak’s order to apply

restraints behind Plaintiff’s back.

C. Qualified Immunity

Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. 41 at

16-17]. Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing

discretionary functions … from liability for civil damages insofar as their

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified

immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated

that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” E.W. ex rel. T.W. v.

Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The doctrine of qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing

room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments and protects all but the

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Smith v. Ray,

781 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A prisoner’s right to be free from the use of excessive force by a prison

guard, whether resulting in serious injury or not, was clearly established well

before the subject incident. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-10, 112

S. Ct. 995 (1992). And “[a] prisoner’s right to adequate medical care and

freedom from deliberate indifference to medical needs has been clearly

established by the Supreme Court and this Circuit since at least 1976.”

Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 236 (4th Cir. 2016).

As to Plaintiff’s post-incident medical care deliberate indifference

claim, he has not forecasted evidence that Defendant Siciak violated a

constitutional right in the first place. As such, Siciak is entitled to qualified

immunity on this claim and the Court grants summary judgment for

Defendant Siciak on this ground as well.

As to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim and the remaining deliberate

indifference claim, Plaintiff has forecasted evidence of violations of

constitutional rights. Moreover, these rights were clearly established at the

time of the incident. Siciak, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on

these claims. Because genuine issues of material fact remain for trial in this

matter, summary judgment for Siciak on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

based on the use of excessive force and deliberate indifference in applying

restraints is inappropriate. Summary judgment, however, will be granted on

Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claim based on the alleged delay in post-incident

medical care.

V. CONCLUSION

In sum, for the reasons stated herein, the Court denies summary

judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s excessive force and deliberate

indifference claims based on the application of restraints in accordance with

this Order. The Court grants Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s remaining

deliberate indifference claim. The Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claim

under the Fourteenth Amendment because it has been abandoned by

Plaintiff.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. 40] is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment

excessive force claim and deliberate indifference claim based on the

application of restraints and GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff's post-

incident medical care deliberate indifference claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment

claim is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is instructed to substitute the true full name of Defendant

FNU Siciak as Arthur Siciak in the docket in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: June 7, 2021

Martifi Reidinger ey

Chief United States District Judge Ale

17