Pittman v. Huneycutt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATESVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO. 5:22-cv-00164-MR

AUSTIN REID PITTMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) MEMORANDUM OF

vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER

)

RONNIE LANE HUNEYCUTT, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by the Defendants Ronnie Lane Huneycutt and Theodore

Dow. [Doc. 45].

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff Austin Reid Pittman filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Alexander

Correctional Institution.1 The Plaintiff’s verified Amended Complaint passed

initial review against Warden Ronnie L. Huneycutt and Nurse Theodore Dow

for deliberate indifference to a serious need. [See Docs. 15: Am. Compl.;

1 The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the North Carolina Central Prison.

Doc. 18: Order on Initial Review]. The Plaintiff seeks damages and a jury

trial. [Doc. 5: Am. Compl. at 9].

The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting

materials. [Doc. 45: MSJ; Doc. 46: MSJ Memo, Exhibits; Doc. 47: Sealed

MSJ Exhibits]. Thereafter, the Court entered an Order in accordance with

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising the 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. 49:

Roseboro Order]. The Plaintiff filed a Response and materials opposing

summary judgment.2 [Doc. 51: Plaintiff’s Response, Memo., Exhibits; Doc.

52: Plaintiff’s Sealed Exhibits]. The Defendants have not replied, and the

time to do so has expired. These matters are ripe for disposition.

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

2 The Court will also consider the verified Complaint and Amended Complaint in the

summary judgment analysis. [Doc. 1: Complaint; Doc. 15: Am. Compl.]; see Goodman v.

Diggs, 986 F.3d 493, 498-99 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that a district court is to consider

verified prisoner complaints as affidavits on summary judgment “when the allegations

contained therein are based on personal knowledge”).

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. To that end, only evidence admissible at trial may be considered by the

Court on summary judgment. Kennedy v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 269 F.

App’x 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

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. Facts, however, “must be

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a

‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127

S.Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). As the Supreme Court has emphasized,

“[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under

Rule 56(c), the opponent must do more than simply

show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the

material facts …. 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.’”

Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986)

(footnote omitted). “[T]he mere existence of some

alleged factual dispute between the parties will not

defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for

summary judgment; the requirement is that there be

no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-28, 106 S. Ct.

2505 (1986). When 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, 550 U.S. at 380.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The forecast of evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Plaintiff as the non-moving party, shows the following.

On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiff was in close custody restrictive housing

at the Alexander CI due to a previous incident where he had removed his

restraints and attempted to escape during a transport. [Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt

Decl. at ¶ 9]. On July 19, 2022 at approximately 5:00 p.m., a use of force

incident occurred between the Plaintiff and correctional staff wherein the

Plaintiff spit at staff and urinated on the floor, and a correctional sergeant

punched the Plaintiff in the face.3 [Doc. 1: Compl. at 2; see Doc. 46-5:

Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 18; Doc. 46-2: MSJ Ex (Incident Report)]. Spitting at

staff is considered assault; accordingly, the Plaintiff was placed in hand

restraints and a spit hood. [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶ 6; Doc. 46-5:

Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 13].

The Plaintiff was taken to Main Medical for a use of force evaluation by

Nurse Dow. [Doc. 1: Compl. at 2; Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶ 3]. The Plaintiff

was combative and threatened to harm staff and himself, which prevented

3 The Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit addressing the alleged use of excessive force by

Sergeant Clawson, who is not a defendant in this case, Case No. 5:22-cv-156-MR. No

claim for the use of excessive force/ failure to intervene passed initial review in the instant

case. [See Doc. 18: Order on Initial Review].

medical staff from properly and safely examining him. [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl.

at ¶ 7; Doc. 47: Sealed MSJ Ex at 6-8 (7/19/22 Clinical Encounter at 17:46

hrs by Dow; noting that Plaintiff complained that his eye is swollen shut and

stating “If you send me to the hospital I am gonna commit suicide by cop”)].

Nurse Dow told the Plaintiff that staff would be better able to assess his injury

and provide treatment as needed after he calmed down. [Doc. 46-4: Dow

Decl. at ¶ 7]. Nurse Dow phoned the doctor, who said that the Plaintiff was

to be taken to the emergency room. [Doc. 15: Am. Compl. at 4-5]. At the

time, however, prison medical staff did not believe that the Plaintiff’s injury

was severe enough to be considered life-threatening.4 [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl.

at ¶ 8; Doc. 47: Sealed MSJ Ex at 6-8].

Warden Huneycutt was informed that the Plaintiff had resisted the

placement of restraints, kicked at and attempted to bite staff, attempted to

remove the spit shield, threatened to assault others and to commit “suicide

by cop” at the hospital, and that his injuries were not life threatening. [Doc.

46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 18, 21]. Warden Huneycutt reviewed video

footage which supported the information that staff had provided. [Id. at ¶ 18].

When medical staff feel that an inmate has non-life-threatening injuries that

4 The Court need not accept the Plaintiff’s unsupported speculation that the delay in

treating his injury presented a “risk to [his] life.” [Doc. 15: Am. Compl. at 7]; see Thompson

v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002).

need to be treated outside the prison, it is up to the warden to decide when

to take the inmate for medical care, based on safety concerns for the inmate,

medical staff, officers, and other offenders. [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶ 10].

Warden Huneycutt determined that the Plaintiff’s safety, the safety of the

prison as a whole, and the safety of the general public at the hospital were

best served by prohibiting the Plaintiff’s transport to the emergency room

until he calmed down and was no longer making threats or assaulting staff.

[Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 21; Doc. 47: Sealed MSJ Ex at 6-8].

The Plaintiff was taken to the Restrictive Housing Unit (“RHU”) where

he began hitting his head against the cell door. [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶

8]. The Plaintiff was brought back to the medical center, where a mental

health clinician and the officer in charge (OIC) authorized the Plaintiff’s

placement in four-point restraints as a self-injury precaution, pursuant to

policy. [Id.; Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 15-17, 22; see Doc. 47: Sealed

MSJ Ex at 6; Doc. 46-1: MSJ Ex at 1-3]. The Plaintiff continued to be

aggressive, violent, and disruptive, and he threatened homicide and self-

injury. [Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶¶ 8, 11]. Although Nurse Dow determined

that the Plaintiff needed to be evaluated at the emergency room after

repeatedly hitting his head against the cell door, Dow agreed with Warden

Huneycutt’s decision that it would be dangerous to transport the Plaintiff to

the emergency room in such a violent, agitated, and unreasonable state. [Id.

at ¶¶ 9-12].

The Plaintiff was strapped to a bed in the RHU for the rest of the night,

in severe pain, and he received no medical treatment. [Doc. 1: Compl. at 3-

4; Doc. 15: Am. Compl. at 5; see Doc. 47: Sealed MSJ Ex at 1]. He was

observed continuously by correctional staff during this restraint. [Doc. 15:

Am. Compl. at 4; Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 22].

A nurse called the doctor about the Plaintiff the following day at around

7:30 a.m. [Doc. 1: Compl. at 3-4; Doc. 15: Am. Compl. at 4]. The Plaintiff

was examined by a medical provider at 8:50 a.m. [Doc. 52 at 6: Response

Ex at 6]. Warden Huneycutt agreed to allow the Plaintiff to be transported to

the emergency room because the Plaintiff had calmed down, stopped

threatening to hurt himself and others, and was no longer dangerous to

transport. [Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 22; Doc. 46-4: Dow Decl. at ¶

13]. At around 9:30 a.m., the Plaintiff was taken to an outside medical center,

where he was diagnosed with an orbital fracture. [Doc. 15: Am. Compl. at 6;

Doc. 52: Response Ex at 12]. The Plaintiff returned to the Alexander CI the

same day with instructions to treat his pain with Tylenol or Motrin and ice,

and to return in two to three weeks for a surgical evaluation. [Doc. 52:

Response Ex at 12].

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged lack of or

inappropriate medical treatment fall within the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To prevail on such a claim a plaintiff must demonstrate

“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” of the inmate. Id.

A “serious medical need” is “one that has been diagnosed by a

physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay

person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Iko v.

Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendants actually knew

of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Scinto v.

Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 225 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). An official acts with deliberate indifference if he

had actual knowledge of the prisoner’s serious medical needs and the

related risks but nevertheless disregards them. DePaola v. Clarke, 884 F.3d

481, 486 (4th Cir. 2018). The prison official “must both be aware of facts

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Allegations that might be sufficient to support negligence and medical

malpractice claims do not, without more, rise to the level of a cognizable

Section 1983 claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. “[E]ven if a prison doctor is

mistaken or negligent in his diagnosis or treatment, no constitutional issue is

raised absent evidence of abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of

medical attention.” Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F. Supp. 757, 762 (D. Md. 1975),

aff’d, 535 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1976).

The undisputed forecast of evidence demonstrates that the delay in

treating the Plaintiff’s injuries was attributable to the Plaintiff’s own conduct,

rather than the Defendants’ deliberate indifference. Specifically, the forecast

of evidence demonstrates that Defendant Dow was unable to adequately

assess and treat the Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s aggressive behavior; that

Defendant Huneycutt disallowed the Plaintiff’s immediate transport to the

emergency room due to genuine safety concerns; that the Plaintiff’s

condition was not believed to be life-threatening; and that the Plaintiff was

taken to the emergency room when he had calmed sufficiently. There is no

forecast of evidence that the Plaintiff’s oppositional behavior ceased or that

his condition markedly deteriorated, that the Defendants were aware of the

same, and that they nevertheless continued to delay care. See generally

Moskos v. Hardee, 24 F.4th 289, 298 (4th Cir. 2022) (delay only constitutes

an Eight Amendment violation where the delay places the prisoner at a

substantial risk of serious harm). The Defendant’s desire for immediate

treatment and transport, additional phone calls to the doctor, and an earlier

utilization review request for emergency care, fail to establish deliberate

indifference. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014)

(reaffirming that disagreements between a prisoner and medical staff

regarding what treatment is needed fall short of showing deliberate

indifference).

Insofar as the Plaintiff complains about the use of four-point restraints,

the forecast of evidence demonstrates that four-point restraints were

authorized by the OIC and a mental health clinician due to the Plaintiff’s self-

injurious behavior. [Doc. 46-5: Huneycutt Decl. at ¶ 22]. There is no forecast

of evidence that Defendants Dow and Huneycutt made the four-point

restraint decision, that they failed to provide adequate medical monitoring

during the restraint period, or that they were aware of any insufficiency in

that regard.5

5 To the extent that the lack of medical monitoring violated prison policy, this by itself fails

to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. See generally Jackson v. Sampson, 536 F. App’x

356, 357 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (holding that “prison officials’ failure to follow

internal prison policies are not actionable under § 1983 unless the alleged breach of policy

rises to the level of constitutional violation”).

In short, there is no forecast of evidence that the Defendants knowingly

disregarded an excessive risk to the Plaintiff’s health or safety. The Plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact

as to the Defendants’ deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.6

B. Qualified Immunity

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional

violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably

believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531

(4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). “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

6 It is unnecessary to address the Defendants’ arguments regarding the use of excessive

force because, as noted supra, no such claim passed initial review in the instant case.

law.” Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 100 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Here, because the Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence

that the Defendant violated any constitutional right, the Defendants are

entitled to qualified immunity. As such, summary judgment for the

Defendants would also be proper on this ground.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment [Doc. 45] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED annary 13,2025

Ct ey

Chief United States District Judge AS

13