Gomez v. Chandler ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41455
JUAN GOMEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM CHANDLER, Sergeant; HENRY REECE,
Sergeant; HAROLD RODEN; GREGORY PALMEIRI,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
January 11, 1999
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-appellant Juan Gomez (Gomez), a Texas prisoner
(#561694), on March 5, 1996, filed this pro se, in forma pauperis
(IFP) action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants-appellees
correctional sergeants Chandler and Reece and correctional officers
Palmeiri and Roden, all employees at Gomez’s place of confinement.
Gomez alleged that defendants violated his due process rights by
filing a false disciplinary report against him, subjected him to
unconstitutional retaliation for exercising his First Amendment
rights by filing a witness statement in another inmate’s suit and
by filing a grievance, and subjected him to excessive force in
violation of the Eighth Amendment in an April 29, 1994, incident at
the prison. The district court sua sponte dismissed the due
process claim as frivolous but allowed Gomez to proceed IFP on the
excessive force and retaliation claims. Later, the district court
on November 15, 1996, granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the suit. Gomez now appeals.
In his appeal, Gomez has not briefed his claims that
defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First
Amendment rights and that they denied him due process by filing a
false disciplinary report against him. These claims are hence
abandoned, and their dismissal is accordingly affirmed. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(6).
Gomez does challenge the summary judgment dismissal of his
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. We find merit in that
challenge, and vacate the dismissal of that claim and remand for
further proceedings.
Factual and Procedural Background
With respect to the excessive force claim, the defendants’
motion for summary judgment asserted, inter alia, that Gomez
suffered no more than a de minimis injury. The district court
agreed and, relying in part on our decision in Siglar v. Hightower,
2
112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997), granted the motion for summary
judgment, observing “the Plaintiff’s injuries are consistent with
the type of de minimis injuries described in . . . Siglar” and
“[t]he Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff
sustained only de minimis injuries, thus his excessive use of force
claim should be dismissed.”
With respect to Gomez’s injuries, the defendants’ summary
judgment motion was not supported by any affidavit or deposition
excerpt from any medical personnel, but did attach copies of
various prison records, including an “Inmate use of force injury
report” form which reflects that on April 29, 1994, after the
complained of use of force that day, Gomez was examined at the unit
infirmary; following the form’s preprinted question “Was the inmate
injured,” the “yes” block is checked, as is also the block
indicating that the injury was “Abrasions”; following the
preprinted question “Was the inmate treated for injury” the “yes”
block is checked as is the block indicating this was done at “Unit
Infirmary” (what treatment was given is not indicated); the “inmate
complaint” blanks contain the notation “1 cm in diameter
superficial scrape on R side of head at hairline abrasion.” Also
submitted with the summary judgment motion is an approximately 4½“
by 5½” photograph, depicting the subject (apparently Gomez) from
approximately mid-thigh up, on which there is easily seen a marking
on the right forehead, which appears rather larger than one
3
centimeter in diameter and looks like some sort of contusion or
abrasion.
In response to the motion for summary judgment, Gomez
submitted a written declaration under penalty of perjury in
substantial conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, in which he asserted
that he did not spit on any of the defendants, that they attacked
him without provocation, and without any need or for any valid
purpose, and while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. This
declaration also includes the following averments:
“16. On April 29, 1994, while being escorted by
defendants Roden and Palmeiri, Defendant Palmeiri did
grabbed [sic] Plaintiff by the handcuffs from behind and
slammed Plaintiff face forward to the concrete floor
where them [sic] both defendants Palmeiri and Roden began
punch Plaintiff on his face with their fists, and
scraping Plaintiff’s face against the concrete floor, as
planned by Sgt. Reece and Sgt. Chandler.
17. About five minutes of the assault Sgt. Reece
and Sgt. Chandler came to the scene of the Assault and
Sgt. Reece kick plaintiff in the face and about the head.
18. Sgt. Reece and Sgt. Chandler then laughingly
stood back to observe while office [sic] Palmeiri
continued to strike Plaintiff with his fists.
19. Plaintiff suffered from physical pain, bodily
injuries in the form of cuts, scrapes, contusions to the
face, head, and body directly resulting from defendants
blantant [sic] assault and battery of Plaintiff upon the
date of April 29, 1994 at the Eastham unit of TDCJ-ID.
20. Contrary to the defendants’ affidavit or
statements, Plaintiff did not provoke the assault as the
defendants claim, I was with my hand cuffed behind my
back, and I have no reason to spit on that officer as
they claim on their summary judgment.
. . . .
4
23. Plaintiff will show that his injuries are more
of de minimis contrary to Defendants claim on their
summary judgment.
24. Contrary to Defendants claim, in summary, have
no justification to clammed Plaintiff and punsh [sic] and
kick Plaintiff on the floor, when at no time defendants
had claim that Plaintiff were resisting, or was any
threat to them or others.
25. Also contrary to Defendants claim, Plaintiff’s
claim that the Assault against Plaintiff was a
premeditated [sic] by the defendants in retaliation of he
[sic] writing the statement for inmate Escovedo.”
Discussion
In Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992), the Supreme
court, reversing this Court, held that a correctional officer’s use
of excessive physical force against a prisoner may in an
appropriate setting constitute cruel and unusual punishment of the
prisoner, contrary to the Eighth Amendment, even though the
prisoner does not suffer either “significant injury” or “serious
injury.” Id. at 997 (“serious injury”), 998 (“significant
injury”), 999 (“serious injury”), 1000 (“significant injury”).
Likewise, Hudson rather clearly implies that merely because the
injury suffered is only “‘minor’” does not of itself always
preclude finding an Eighth Amendment excessive force violation.
Id. at 1000. Hudson, relying on Whitley v. Albers, 106 S. Ct. 1078
(1986), looked largely to “whether force was applied in a good-
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson at 999. For purposes of this
inquiry, Hudson placed primary emphasis on the degree of force
5
employed in relation to the apparent need for it, as distinguished
from the extent of injury suffered. Id. However, the Court
expressly recognized that “the extent of the injury suffered,” as
well as “[t]he absence of serious injury,” were “relevant to the
Eighth Amendment inquiry, but do[es] not end it.” Id. Hudson does
not expressly state that an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
can be made out where no physical injury is suffered, or where the
only physical injury is de minimis; indeed, it infers that, at the
very least, such questions are left open either generally or where
“the use of force is not of a sort ‘”repugnant to the conscience of
mankind.”’”1
In our opinion in Hudson on remand from the Supreme Court, we
stated that the factors to be looked to in determining whether an
1
See Hudson at 1000:
“That is not to say that every malevolent touch by
a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.
. . . The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and
unusual’ punishments necessarily excludes from
constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical
force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort
‘”repugnant to the conscience of mankind.”’ Whitley, 475
U.S., at 327, 106 S.Ct., at 1088 (quoting Estelle, supra,
429 U.S., at 106, 97 S. Ct., at 292) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
In this case, the Fifth Circuit found Hudson’s claim
untenable because his injuries were ‘minor.’ 929 F.2d,
at 1015. Yet the blows directed at Hudson, which caused
bruises, swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental
plate, are not de minimis for Eighth Amendment purposes.
The extent of Hudson’s injuries thus provides no basis
for dismissal of his § 1983 claim.”
6
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim has been made out “include”
the following: “1. the extent of the injury suffered; 2. the need
for the application of force; 3. the relationship between the need
and the amount of force used; 4. the threat reasonably perceived by
the responsible officials; and 5. any efforts made to temper the
severity of a forceful response.” Hudson v. McMillen, 962 F.2d
522, 523 (5th Cir. 1992). Since then, we have held on at least two
occasions that some physical injury is an indispensable element of
an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. Knight v. Caldwell, 970
F.2d 1430, 1432-33 (5th Cir. 1992) (Hudson “does not affect the
rule that requires proof of injury, albeit significant or
insignificant”; “injury” properly defined as physical injury);
Jackson v. Culbertson, 984 F.2d 699, 700 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Because
he suffered no injury . . . [there] was a de minimis use of
physical force . . . not repugnant to the conscience of mankind”;
emphasis added).2
We most recently addressed this issue in Siglar. There we
sustained the pretrial dismissal as frivolous of a prisoner’s
2
In Jackson our supporting citations suggest that a de minimis
injury would not suffice. See id. at 700:
“Cf. Olson v. Coleman, 804 F. Supp. 148, 150 (D. Kan.
1992) (finding a single blow to the head causing a
contusion to be de minimis and not repugnant); Candelaria
v. Coughlin, 787 F. Supp. 368, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
(allegation of single incident of guard using force to
choke inmate was de minimis), aff’d, 979 F.2d 845 (2d
Cir. 1992).”
7
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim which apparently also sought
recovery for resultant mental or emotional injury. The district
court had relied in part on 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), enacted as part
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which is entitled
“Limitation on recovery” and provides: “No Federal civil action
may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison or other
correctional facility for mental or emotional injury suffered while
in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.”3 We noted
that there was no statutory definition of “physical injury” as used
in section 1997e(e) and hence derived the meaning of that term from
Eighth Amendment excessive force jurisprudence as outlined in
Hudson. Thus, we stated:
“In the absence of any definition of ‘physical injury’ in
the new statute, we hold that the well established Eighth
Amendment standards guide our analysis in determining
whether a prisoner has sustained the necessary physical
injury to support a claim for mental or emotional
suffering. That is, the injury must be more than de
minimis, but need not be significant.” Siglar at 193
(citing Hudson).
This passage is at least an inferential statement that for purposes
of Eighth Amendment excessive force claims——as well as for purposes
of section 1997e(e)——”the injury must be more than de minimis, but
3
Gomez’s suit was filed before——and sought recovery on account
of matters occurring before——the enactment of the PLRA on April 26,
1996, but the district court’s dismissal of the suit was after that
date. We need not decide whether section 1997e(e) applies to
Gomez’s suit, see Zehner v. Trigg, 133 F.3d 459, 460-61 (7th Cir.
1997), because our disposition of this appeal would be the same
whether or not section 1997e(e) is applicable.
8
need not be significant.” That is confirmed not only by an earlier
passage in the opinion, viz: “[t]he question for this court is
whether Siglar’s bruised ear amounts to a ‘physical injury’ that
can serve as the basis for his excessive force or mental and
emotion suffering claims” (id. at 193, emphasis added), but also by
the opinion’s concluding language, viz: “[w]e conclude that
Siglar’s alleged injury——a sore, bruised ear lasting for three
days——was de minimis. Siglar has not raised a valid Eighth
Amendment claim for excessive use of force nor does he have the
requisite physical injury to support a claim for emotional or
mental suffering.” Id. at 193-194 (emphasis added).
Clearly, then, the law of this Circuit is that to support an
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim a prisoner must have
suffered from the excessive force a more than de minimis physical
injury, but there is no categorical requirement that the physical
injury be significant, serious, or more than minor.4
4
It may also be arguable that Siglar leaves open the
possibility that a physical injury which is only de minimis may
nevertheless suffice for purposes of the Eighth Amendment and
section 1997e(e) if the force used is of the kind “‘repugnant to
the conscience of mankind.’” Thus, Siglar states: “However, the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of
physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort
‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” Id. at 193 (quoting
Hudson, 112 S. Ct. at 1000). We need not resolve this possible
question because we hold that on this record Gomez has made a
sufficient showing of a more than de minimis physical injury so as
to preclude summary judgment to the contrary.
9
We conclude that on this record Gomez——unlike the plaintiff in
Siglar——has made a sufficient showing of a more than de minimis
physical injury so as to preclude summary judgment to the contrary.
In Siglar, we described the complained of conduct and injury
as follows: “[the corrections officer] twisted Siglar’s arm behind
his back and twisted Siglar’s ear. Siglar’s ear was bruised and
sore for three days but he did not seek or receive medical
treatment for any physical injury resulting from the incident.
There is no allegation that he sustained long term damage to his
ear.” Id. at 193. We stated that these allegations presented the
question “whether Siglar’s bruised ear amounts to a ‘physical
injury’ that can serve as the basis for his excessive force” claim,
and concluded that because “Siglar’s alleged injury——a sore, bruised
ear lasting for three days——was de minimis” he had therefore “not
raised a valid Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force.” Id.
Here, by contrast, Gomez did receive medical treatment for his
injury. Moreover, the application of force to Siglar’s person was
obviously far briefer and of a character far less intense and less
calculated to produce real physical harm than that here, as Gomez
was allegedly knocked down so his head struck the concrete floor,
his face was then scraped against the floor, he was repeatedly
punched in the face by two officers using their fists for about
five minutes and then a third officer kicked Gomez in the face and
head, after which one of the two officers continued to hit Gomez
10
with his fists. As a result, Gomez allegedly suffered “cuts,
scrapes, contusions to the face, head, and body.” On this record,
we cannot say as a matter of law that Gomez’s injuries were no more
than de minimis.5
Conclusion
As to the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, we vacate
the summary judgment and remand that claim for further proceedings
not inconsistent herewith; as to all Gomez’s other claims, the
judgment below is affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part
5
We recognize that Gomez admitted that on April 29, 1994, some
time prior to the incident in question he had broken a pipe and
window. The record is not adequately developed as to the relation
between these events and complained of use of force against Gomez.
Gomez does state that his hands were handcuffed behind his back
when the attack he complains of occurred and that then he posed no
threat and did not resist (or spit on defendants). The district
court based its summary judgment on the excessive force claim, not
on the basis that the force actually used was warranted or thought
to be so, but on the basis that Gomez’s injuries were de minimis.
Any other issues respecting the excessive force claim we leave for
the district court to address in the first instance.
11