James Williams v. L. Calton , 551 F. App'x 50 ( 2013 )

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6882
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
L. CALTON,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
B. CALTON; CAPTAIN LKU; TERRY O’BRIEN; LALOUDE, Staff
Counselor; CRUM; SHOEMAKER; CALTON, (brother to B. Calton);
CAMPBELL; DELORES; WILLIS; MR. CHAMBERS; LALONDE,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00075-GEC-RSB)
Submitted: December 12, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James J. O’Keeffe, IV, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. James Williams, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Williams filed a Bivens 1 action against
Correctional Officer L. Calton, charging that Calton used
excessive force against him during an altercation that occurred
in February 2008 while Williams was incarcerated at United
States Penitentiary Lee in Jonesville, Virginia. Finding that
Calton violated Williams’ Eighth Amendment rights, the jury
awarded $1000 in compensatory damages to Williams but did not
award punitive damages. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b),
Calton moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial,
arguing, as he had in earlier motions, that he was entitled to
qualified immunity and that Williams failed to establish that he
acted with the malicious and sadistic intent necessary to
support an Eighth Amendment claim. The district court denied
Calton’s motion and Calton appealed, challenging the denial of
his Rule 50(b) motion.
Initially, we affirmed the district court’s order.
Before the mandate issued, however, Calton filed a petition for
panel rehearing. While the rehearing petition was pending, this
court issued Hill v. Crum, 727 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2013).
Because Hill constitutes an intervening change in law, we
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
3
granted Calton’s petition for panel rehearing. For the reasons
that follow, we vacate the district court’s order denying
Calton’s Rule 50(b) motion, and remand with instructions to
enter judgment in favor of Calton.
We review the denial of a Rule 50(b) motion de novo,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party and affirming the denial of the motion unless
the jury lacked a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its
verdict. Bunn v. Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. GH, 723 F.3d
454, 460 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013). Viewed in the evidence most
favorable to Williams, the evidence showed that when Williams,
who was being escorted in restraints, resisted entering a cell,
Calton slammed his head into the cell door and then shoved him
to the floor. Williams sustained a “minor” and “superficial”
1.5 inch scalp laceration requiring six staples and a small
half- to one-inch abrasion on his back. 2
In Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir. 1994) (en
banc), this court held that, “absent the most extraordinary
circumstances, a plaintiff cannot prevail on an Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim if his injury is de minimis.” Id. at
2
Williams’ other claims of injury are unsupported by the
record. “While we must construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to [Williams], we cannot construe what does not
exist.” Hill, 727 F.3d at 323.
4
1263. Three days after Williams filed his initial complaint,
however, the Supreme Court handed down Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559
U.S. 34 (2010), abrogating Norman and stating that there was no
injury threshold for excessive force claims. However, because
“Norman and its progeny were controlling in the Fourth Circuit”
when the incident in this case occurred, Williams’ excessive
force claim and Calton’s qualified immunity defense must be
analyzed under the standards established by those cases. Hill,
727 F.3d at 322.
We conclude that, under the legal standards in place
when the incident occurred, a reasonable officer in Calton’s
position would not have understood his actions to have violated
Williams’ constitutional rights. Id. at 321-25. Consequently,
Calton is entitled to qualified immunity.
For these reasons, the district court’s order denying
Calton’s Rule 50(b) motion is vacated and the case is remanded
to the district court for the entry of judgment in favor of
Calton on the basis of qualified immunity. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and law are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5