Wendall Hall v. Jeffrey Bennett , 447 F. App'x 921 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12869 NOVEMBER 23, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-01190-HLA-MCR
WENDALL JERMAINE HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JEFFREY K. BENNETT,
Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 23, 2011)
Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wendall Jermaine Hall, a Florida state prison inmate, appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Jeffrey K. Bennett, an
employee of the Florida Department of Corrections. After oral argument and
review of the record and parties’ briefs, we reverse. The record at this juncture
presents a material issue of fact, precluding summary judgment for Officer
Bennett.
I. BACKGROUND
Because we are reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
Officer Bennett, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to Hall. At the
time of the alleged incident, Hall was a prisoner at Florida State Prison.1 On
November 10, 2008, Hall was working as an orderly in one of the prison’s wings.
Officer Bennett was monitoring activity in that wing. Hall approached Officer
Bennett and relayed a request from another inmate for some forms. Further, Hall
avers that Officer Bennett (1) took Hall to the shower area, (2) “threatened to kill
[Hall],” and (3) proceeded to:
deliberately[,] maliciously[,] wantonly[,] and sadistically physically beat
and punch[] [Hall] repeatedly with his fist in [Hall’s] stomach, sides of
[Hall’s] body, [and] back[.] [Officer Bennett] physically slap[ped] [Hall]
in [his] face and spit his saliva in [Hall’s] face[. Officer Bennett] stated
to [Hall] that [he] was a nigger desserving [sic] of this beating because
[he is] black[. Officer Bennett] caused [him] severe physical pain,
physical injury[,] and mental anguish, severe depression, repeated
vommitting [sic] of blood and severe stomach pain and severe fear of
being killed by Officer Bennett, and future harm to [Hall’s] health[.]
1
Hall is now confined at a different prison.
2
After the November 10th alleged incident, Hall filed a formal emergency
grievance to the prison warden, alleging physical abuse, racial slurs, and threats by
Officer Bennett. Hall dated the grievance November 12, 2008, although the
grievance log recorded the grievance as received on November 18, 2008. Officer
Bennett vigorously denied all allegations.
On November 16 and 18, 2008, Hall submitted virtually identical Inmate
Sick-Call Requests. In the requests, Hall asked for medical care for physical pain
to his stomach, back, and chest caused by Officer Bennett’s alleged beating.
After Hall sued Officer Bennett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Officer Bennett
moved for summary judgment. Among other evidence, Officer Bennett submitted
his affidavit, which contradicted Hall’s sworn version of events. Officer Bennett
stated that he had previously ordered Hall not to stand in front of the prison cells
and talk to the inmates. However, on November 10, 2008, Officer Bennett
observed Hall standing in front of another inmate’s cell and talking to him, in
violation of the previous order. Because Hall was disobeying his order, Officer
Bennett acknowledged that he placed Hall in “cuffs” and secured him in the
prison’s shower area until the decision was made to return Hall to his own cell.
Officer Bennett, however, denied using racial slurs or threats, or physically
abusing Hall.
3
Hall responded with his own motion for summary judgment. In support of
his motion, Hall submitted his affidavit, copies of his prison grievance, the
prison’s responses, a carbon copy of his sick call request from November 18,
2008, and copies of the reports from his November 17 and November 20, 2008
medical examinations.
The district court granted Officer Bennett’s motion for summary judgment
and denied Hall’s motion. The district court, quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007), concluded that Hall’s version of the story
was “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe
it.”
II. DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
considering the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir.
2009). In cases where opposing parties tell different versions of the same events,
and one is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could
believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts.” Pourmoghani-
Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (quoting
Scott, 550 U.S. at 380).
4
After review of the record evidence, crediting Hall’s affidavit as we must,
we conclude that a material issue of fact exists as to whether Officer Bennett
physically abused Hall and used racial slurs. In adopting Officer Bennett’s
version of events, the district court relied in part on Hall’s medical records and the
lack of documentation of any visible injuries. We recognize that in certain
circumstances, a plaintiff’s version of events can be blatantly contradicted by
videotapes or other overwhelming physical evidence and testimony. See Scott,
550 U.S. at 380, 127 S. Ct. at 1776 (summary judgment appropriate where video
evidence “utterly discredited” the plaintiff’s version of events); Kesinger ex rel.
Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2004)
(summary judgment appropriate where multiple affidavits and photographic
evidence contradicted one eyewitness’s testimony, who had himself earlier given a
different account). Here, however, we cannot say the evidence in this particular
record rises to the level necessary to deem Hall’s sworn account blatantly
contradicted. Hall had his blood drawn on November 12 for a thyroid profile, but
he was not physically examined. Hall’s first physical medical examination
occurred on November 13. The November 13 medical report noted that Hall’s
back pain was in the area of an old wound and that Hall was prescribed ibuprofen
for his reported back and chest pain. However, the report does not establish the
5
extent of the examination or flatly refute Hall’s version of the events. As for
whether Hall’s delay in seeking medical treatment discredits his story, that is an
inference for the jury to make. And further, while Hall’s medical reports did not
note any obvious injuries, we are mindful of the fact that the focus of the inquiry is
on the nature of the force applied, not the extent of injury. See Wilkins v. Gaddy,
559 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per curiam).
Simply put, we are left with two competing, contradictory stories of what
happened. The district court improperly weighed the witnesses’ credibility by
favoring Officer Bennett’s account over Hall’s. We thus vacate the district court’s
order, dated June 10, 2010, granting summary judgment to Officer Bennett, and
remand for further proceedings on Hall’s claims.2
VACATED and REMANDED.
2
We conclude, however, that the district court properly denied Hall’s motion for default
judgment.
6