McClendon v. Department of Juvenile Justice , 701 F. App'x 771 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16317
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-03588-WBH
JOSHUA MCCLENDON,
DELVIA ROBINSON,
as next of friend of Joshua McClendon,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 30, 2017)
Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 2 of 6
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After his probation was revoked, Joshua McClendon became a juvenile
detainee at the Metro Regional Youth Detention Center in Atlanta, Georgia. While
he was detained there, Christopher Williams, one of the Center’s guards, slammed
McClendon’s cell door on his hand, crushing three of his fingers. McClendon
brought this lawsuit against Williams and other defendants, asserting, among other
things, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for use of excessive force in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed all claims except the Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim, and then granted Williams’ motion for
summary judgment. McClendon appeals the district court’s entry of summary
judgment. 1
Cells in the Center are fully enclosed rooms, without bars, and the cell doors
are made of solid steel. 2 The only way to see into a cell from the outside is to look
through a window in the cell door. At his deposition McClendon testified that light
coming through the window in his door made it difficult for him to sleep. So he
often jammed a blanket between the door and the door frame so that it would drape
over the window and block the light.
1
McClendon does not appeal the dismissal of his other claims, and the other defendants
(other than Williams) are not parties to this appeal.
2
Unlike in many jails, detainees in the Center are not literally “behind bars.”
2
Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 3 of 6
On the night of the incident, Williams performed a routine check on all the
cells in McClendon’s wing of the Center. According to McClendon’s testimony,
Williams knocked on his door, unlocked it, and opened it while telling McClendon
to take down the blanket that was covering the window. McClendon began to
comply, but while he was pulling the blanket Williams slammed the door on his
hand. The door crushed three of McClendon’s fingers and resulted in the
amputation of part of his middle finger.
Williams submitted into evidence a videotape recorded by a security camera
outside McClendon’s cell. The video shows Williams making his rounds and
stopping at McClendon’s door. Williams unlocks the door, which flies open so
quickly that it must have been pushed from the inside by McClendon. The door
continues swinging open until it is stopped by Williams’ foot. It then remains ajar
for about one second before Williams begins trying to shut it. McClendon pushes
against the door and is able to prevent Williams from shutting it for another second
or two, but Williams is eventually able to slam it closed. Finally, the door pops
open slightly for a moment, and then is shut completely.
The district court granted summary judgment to Williams. It concluded that,
based on the evidence in the record, “no jury could reasonably find in
[McClendon’s] favor.”
3
Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 4 of 6
“We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment and draw
all inferences and review[ ] all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party.” Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318
(11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). “Summary judgment is appropriate
only 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.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). For a dispute of material fact to be “genuine,” the nonmoving party must
point to sufficient evidence such that “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
[him].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510
(1986). In cases where a video in evidence “obviously contradicts [p]laintiff’s
version of the facts, we accept the video’s depiction instead of [p]laintiff’s
account,” Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010),
and “view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape,” Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380–81, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007).
To prove an Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force by a guard, the
plaintiff must show that “force was applied” by the defendant “maliciously and
sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d
1353, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Negligence or deliberate indifference on the part of
the defendant is not enough to sustain a claim in this context. Id. As the Supreme
Court has explained, “[t]he infliction of pain in the course of a prison security
4
Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 5 of 6
measure . . . does not amount to [an Eighth Amendment violation] simply because
it may appear in retrospect that the degree of force authorized or applied for
security purposes was unreasonable, and hence unnecessary in the strict sense.”
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S. Ct. 1078, 1084 (1986).
Based on the evidence in the record, no reasonable jury could find that
Williams acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing
harm.” See Campbell, 169 F.3d at 1374. At this stage, the facts must be viewed
“in the light depicted by the videotape,” see Scott, 550 U.S. at 381, 127 S. Ct. at
1776, and the tape shows that McClendon pushed open his cell door quickly and
forcefully, as if he were attempting to escape his cell, and held it open as Williams
tried to close it. In light of that, it is not clear that Williams’ response — slamming
the cell door — was unreasonable, let alone “malicious and sadistic,” as required to
sustain an excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment. As a result, there
was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Williams violated
McClendon’s constitutional rights. Summary judgment was proper. See
Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1318.
McClendon also contends that he raised a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Williams was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need because
Williams did not immediately treat his injuries. But he did not assert a deliberate
indifference claim in his second amended complaint, and he cannot “raise new
5
Case: 16-16317 Date Filed: 06/30/2017 Page: 6 of 6
claims at the summary judgment stage” or on appeal. See Gilmour v. Gates,
McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1314–15 (11th Cir. 2004). If he wished to assert
a deliberate indifference claim, the proper procedure was to seek to amend his
complaint once again in the district court. Id. at 1315. He failed to do that.
Because he did not properly raise his deliberate indifference claim in the district
court, we will not consider it. See id. at 1314–15.
AFFIRMED.
6