John Galada v. George Payne, Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-60731 Document: 00511441239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 11, 2011
    No. 10-60731
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    JOHN JAMES GALADA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    GEORGE H. PAYNE, JR.; DIANNE GATSON-RILEY, Major; MARTIN
    LIPSCOMB, Deputy Sheriff; HARRISON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION
    CENTER JAIL ADMINISTRATOR; SHERIFF OF HARRISON COUNTY,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 1:07-CV-937
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    John James Galada, Mississippi prisoner # 131955, appeals the district
    court’s grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissal
    for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
    In his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil suit, Galada claimed that prison officials had
    violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by subjecting him, as
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 10-60731 Document: 00511441239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2011
    No. 10-60731
    a pretrial detainee, to deplorable conditions of confinement caused by
    overcrowding and by using excessive force as a form of punishment.
    Galada argues that summary judgment was inappropriate in this case
    because he presented a genuine dispute and because the record was not properly
    developed.    He further asserts that the district court erred in denying his
    motions for appointment of counsel and in dismissing his complaint for failure
    to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In addition, Galada asserts
    that the proper standard to analyze his use of force claim was not whether
    officials used excessive force but, rather, whether he received corporal
    punishment without due process.
    We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Xtreme
    Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 
    576 F.3d 221
    , 226 (5th Cir. 2009). Galada
    fails to make an adequate showing of a genuine dispute, and the evidence he
    presented to the court tends to establish only that the facility in which he was
    housed was overcrowded. This court has held that absent a showing that the
    conditions constituted “punishment” under the Fourteenth Amendment,
    “[o]vercrowding of persons in custody is not per se unconstitutional.” Collins v.
    Ainsworth, 
    382 F.3d 529
    , 540 (5th Cir. 2004). Galada has not made such a
    showing here.
    Galada’s contention that summary judgment was inappropriate because
    the record was undeveloped due to his inability to complete discovery is
    unavailing.     Galada was provided ample time to conduct discovery and
    acknowledged that many of the documents he sought to support his claims were
    part of public record. In addition, Galada failed to even request a Federal Rule
    of Civil Procedure 56 continuance for further discovery in the district court and
    did not provide the district court with specific facts explaining his inability to
    make a substantive response to the summary judgment motion and
    demonstrating how additional time for discovery would have allowed him to
    2
    Case: 10-60731 Document: 00511441239 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2011
    No. 10-60731
    present a genuine issue of material fact. Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 
    901 F.2d 1281
    , 1285 (5th Cir. 1990).
    The denial of Galada’s appointment of counsel motion was not an abuse
    of discretion. See Cupit v. Jones, 
    835 F.2d 82
    , 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Galada’s
    constitutional issues are not particularly complex, and he has proven himself
    more than capable of competently proceeding without the assistance of counsel.
    See Freeze v. Griffith, 
    849 F.2d 172
    , 175 (5th Cir. 1988); Branch v. Cole, 
    686 F.2d 264
    , 266 (5th Cir. 1982).
    Galada does not address the district court’s specific reasons for dismissing
    his claims against Dianne Gatson-Riley in her official capacity.          When an
    appellant fails to identify error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as
    if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
    Deputy Sheriff Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). In addition, Galada
    does not plead any specific facts tending to establish Gatson-Riley’s liability in
    her individual capacity; therefore, he has not demonstrated that his right to
    relief rises above the speculative level. See Gonzalez v. Kay, 
    577 F.3d 600
    , 603
    (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    130 S. Ct. 1505
     (2010). Accordingly, the district
    court did not err in dismissing the claims against Gatson-Riley in her individual
    capacity. See 
    id.
    Galada does not cite to any cases utilizing a corporal punishment standard
    in the context of excessive use of force against a pretrial detainee. The standard
    Galada espouses is essentially the same one we use to analyze excessive use of
    force claims. In order to prevail on a claim of excessive use of force, the plaintiff
    must establish that the force was not applied in a good-faith effort to maintain
    or restore discipline, but rather was applied maliciously and sadistically with the
    intention to cause harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 
    503 U.S. 1
    , 6-7 (1992). Although
    a showing of “significant injury” is not necessary, we require that the plaintiff
    have suffered at least some form of injury that is more than de minimis. Glenn
    v. City of Tyler, 
    242 F.3d 307
    , 314 (5th Cir. 2001). Galada has not made the
    3
    Case: 10-60731 Document: 00511441239 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/11/2011
    No. 10-60731
    required showing and acknowledges that he suffered no significant physical
    injuries. See 
    id.
     Given that he alleges no physical injuries, Galada is barred
    from seeking damages for mental or emotional distress. See 42 U.S.C.§ 1997e(e);
    Geiger v. Jowers, 
    404 F.3d 371
    , 374-75 (5th Cir. 2005.
    AFFIRMED.
    4