The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:22-cv-00164-MR
MARLON BARTLETT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
) ORDER
FNU MILLER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2); 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 7].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Marlon Bartlett (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of
North Carolina currently incarcerated at Avery/Mitchell Correctional
Institution in Spruce Pine, North Carolina. On August 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed
the Complaint in this matter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on events he
alleges occurred at Mountain View Correctional Institution (“Mountain View”),
also in Spruce Pine. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1)
FNU Miller, identified as a Sergeant at Mountain View; (2) William Wise,
identified as a Lieutenant at Mountain View; and (3) Dexter Gibbs, identified
as an Assistant Warden at Mountain View. [Id. at 1-2]. Plaintiff alleges as
follows.
On October 19, 2021, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Officer Hamilton
approached Plaintiff and accused him of being inside another inmate’s cell,
presumably against prison rules. [Doc. 1-1 at 10]. Plaintiff tried to explain to
Officer Hamilton that he had not been in the other inmate’s cell because the
other inmate was sitting in the doorway to the cell, blocking ingress. Officer
Hamilton directed Plaintiff to proceed to the “core area,” where Plaintiff talked
to Defendant Miller, the Officer-in-Charge. Plaintiff tried to explain to
Defendant Miller that there had been a mistake. Defendant Miller quickly
“caught an attitude” and told Plaintiff “to shut [his] F-ing mouth.” Plaintiff was
immediately placed in handcuffs behind his back. Plaintiff turned his head
to explain to Defendant Miller that he, Plaintiff, had done nothing wrong.
Defendant Miller “then pulled his can of O.C. pepper spray [and] reach[ed]
around the two officers that had [Plaintiff] pinned to the wall and sprayed
[Plaintiff] excessively.” [Id.].
Plaintiff was charged with two disciplinary offenses because of the
incident. [Id. at 12-13]. Plaintiff includes with his Complaint a copy of the
Disciplinary Report. Officer Hamilton reported that Plaintiff began to resist
while Plaintiff was being placed in restraints. Defendant Miller reported that
Plaintiff began to move around, resisting and pulling away, when he was
placed in restraints. Defendant Miller ordered Plaintiff to stop resisting and
stop pulling away and Plaintiff ignored the order and continued to pull away.
Defendant Miller gave Plaintiff a second order to stop resisting and Plaintiff
again ignored the order and continued to pull away. At this time, Defendant
Miller applied two bursts of OC pepper spray to Plaintiff’s facial area and
Plaintiff stopped resisting. [Id. at 12].
On January 11, 2022, nearly three months after the incident, Plaintiff
filed a grievance, recounting in large part what he alleges in his Complaint
here. [See Doc. 1-1 at 2-6]. Defendant Wise acknowledged receipt and
acceptance of the grievance and provided the Step One response. [Id. at 1,
8]. In the Step One response, Defendant Wise provided a summary of the
events in keeping with the Disciplinary Report and determined that no further
action was required. [Id. at 8]. Defendant Gibbs provided the Step Two
response. [Id. at 7]. In the Step Two response, Defendant Gibbs concluded
that the Step One response was sufficient, noting that “[t]he officers involved
in this incident acted within policy and procedure.” [Id.].
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Miller violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment because Miller sprayed Plaintiff while in handcuffs, which
Plaintiff claims is “clearly excessive use of force.” [Doc. 1 at 3]. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants Wise and Gibbs violated his Eighth Amendment
rights because they knew and did nothing about Defendant Miller’s conduct.
[Id.]. For injuries, Plaintiff states that his eyes burned for four to five days
and that he now gets paranoid when prison officers “come around” him. [Id.].
For relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and purports
to seek a declaratory judgment regarding “the acts of the officers/staff.” [Id.
at 5].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must review Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether it is
subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Furthermore, § 1915A requires an initial review of a “complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity,” and the court must identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint
raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly
baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se
complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a
district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was
“deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999).
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). The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane
methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement.
Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996).
To establish an Eighth Amendment excessive force 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). In adjudicating an excessive force claim, the Court must
consider such factors as the need for the use of force, the relationship
between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury
inflicted, and, ultimately, whether the force was “applied in a good faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21.
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Miller pepper sprayed him “while
in handcuffs, which is clearly excessive use of force.” [Doc. 1 at 3]. Plaintiff,
however, includes as part of his Complaint a Disciplinary Report regarding
the disciplinary charges against Plaintiff from the incident. This Report
shows that Plaintiff was pepper sprayed because he was resisting and
disobeying orders. An inmate restrained with only handcuffs can still be a
threat. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, employing pepper spray on a restrained
inmate is not per se excessive force and Plaintiff does allege that the Report
is incorrect, but rather includes it as part of his Complaint. As such, Plaintiff
has failed to allege any facts supporting the subjective component of an
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. That is, Plaintiff has failed to
allege facts showing that Defendant Miller employed pepper spray
maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. Moreover, the
facts alleged support the conclusion that Miller used pepper spray on Plaintiff
to restore discipline. Plaintiff, therefore, has failed to state a claim for relief
under the Eight Amendment based on the use of excessive force. Defendant
Miller will, therefore, be dismissed on initial review.
B. Failure to Punish
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wise and Gibbs violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by failing to punish Defendant Miller in response to
Plaintiff’s grievances. Plaintiff, however, has no constitutional right to have
an officer allegedly responsible for his injuries internally punished or
sanctioned by the officer’s supervisors or by the officer’s correctional facility.
As such, even if Defendant Miller did violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
rights by using excessive force on Plaintiff, Defendants Wise and Gibbs are
not liable under § 1983 for not punishing Defendant Miller after the fact.
As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against any
Defendant and they will all be dismissed as Defendants on initial review in
this matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under § 1983 against any Defendant.
The Court will allow Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend his Complaint, if
he so chooses and if the facts support such amendment. Any Amended
Complaint will be subject to all timeliness and procedural requirements and
will supersede the Complaint. Piecemeal amendment will not be permitted.
Should Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this
Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further
notice to Plaintiff.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30)
days in which to amend his Complaint in accordance with the terms of this
Order. If Plaintiff fails to so amend his Complaint, the matter will be
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants are DISMISSED as
Defendants in this matter.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to mail Plaintiff a blank prisoner
Section 1983 form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 3, 2022
Martiff Reidinger ey
Chief United States District Judge MES