Atwell v. Hart County , 122 F. App'x 215 ( 2005 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0080n.06
Filed: February 2, 2005
No. 03-6421
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN T. ATWELL, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
HART COUNTY, KENTUCKY; HART COUNTY ) KENTUCKY
FISCAL COURT; TERRY SHELTON; JIM )
STEWART; RONALD RIORDAN; FRANKLIN )
TURNER; DON KESSINGER; BILL )
CARTMILL, individually and as Hart)
County Jailer; BUSTER MAXEY, )
individually and as Deputy Jailer;)
SHELBY DIXON, individually and as )
Deputy Jailer; JASON PEDIGO, )
individually and as Deputy Jailer;)
GREG GARDNER, individually and as )
Deputy Jailer; ALICE COOPER RICH, ) OPINION
individually and as Deputy Jailer;)
TONY FIELDS, individually and as )
Deputy Jailer; STANLEY MURPHY; )
JERRY RAY GARDNER, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: COOK and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; and BECKWITH,
Chief District Judge*
SANDRA S. BECKWITH, Chief District Judge. This appeal arises
from the district court’s award of summary judgment to the
*Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Appellees on claims related to Appellant Atwell’s brief
incarceration in the Hart County Jail in 2000. For the reasons
that follow, we AFFIRM.
In April 2000, days after being diagnosed with paranoid
schizophrenia, acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and
polysubstance abuse, Appellant Atwell trespassed onto a golf
course near his home. He was arrested and taken to the Hart
County Jail, where he was placed in isolation. He acted
consistently with his recent diagnoses, and, fearing for Mr.
Atwell’s safety, jail personnel sought an emergency
hospitalization order. Upon obtaining the order, jail personnel
transported Mr. Atwell to the Western State Hospital.
The transfer was not without event. Appellant Atwell
resisted and fought with guards. They used a stun shield and
pepper spray to subdue him and to effectuate the transfer. The
altercation was recorded on videotape. It resulted in
convictions for assault against Mr. Atwell.
Western State Hospital personnel increased the prescribed
dosage for the medication being used to treat Mr. Atwell’s mental
illnesses and returned him to the Hart County Jail. There, he
was again isolated and, according to all of the record evidence,
refused to take his medication. He was uncooperative and injured
himself. He suffered hallucinations and paranoid delusions. A
2
jail nurse recommended psychiatric care outside the jail. Jail
personnel sought an order for such a transfer and, upon obtaining
one, transferred Appellant Atwell to the Kentucky Correctional
Psychiatric Center.
After being treated at the Psychiatric Center, Mr. Atwell
remained incarcerated for several weeks. His claims relate to
the period prior to that treatment, however.
They include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the excessive
use of force, denial of proper medical care, and failure to train
jail personnel. Appellant Atwell also asserted that jail
personnel discriminated against him and failed to make reasonable
accommodation for his disability in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and the parallel provisions of
the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. Finally, Mr. Atwell asserted
claims for assault and battery, outrage, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress under Kentucky law.
Appellees moved for summary judgment, and the district court
concluded that Appellant Atwell had failed to identify evidence
in support of any of his claims. The court awarded judgment to
the Appellees, prompting this appeal.
The parties are in substantial agreement as regards the
applicable legal standards. While Appellant Atwell questions
whether the district court chose the correct standard in
addressing Appellant’s claim that he was subjected to excessive
3
force, we have not failed to notice that the district court
analyzed the claim in accordance with both of the arguably
applicable standards and concluded that Appellant Atwell had not
introduced evidence in satisfaction of either. We are convinced
that the district court did not err in selecting the standards
applicable to each of Appellant Atwell’s claims. We “consider
all facts and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most
favorable to [Appellant]” and review the district court’s
conclusion that summary judgment with respect to all of Appellant
Atwell’s claims is appropriate in accordance with the de novo
standard of review. Davis v. Sodexho, Cumberland College
Cafeteria, 157 F.3d 460, 462 (6th Cir. 1998).
The district court properly concluded that the evidence of
record could not support Appellant Atwell’s allegation that
personnel of the Hart County Jail used excessive force against
him in the process of effectuating his transfer to the Western
State Hospital. The Appellees’ use of force was necessitated by
Mr. Atwell’s actions, and the evidence demonstrates unequivocally
that the force used was only that necessary to maintain control
and accomplish the legitimate purpose of moving Mr. Atwell in
order to ensure that he received the appropriate medical care.
The use of force was not punitive and was objectively reasonable.
It did not, therefore, deprive Mr. Atwell of the protections of
the Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10
4
(1989); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979); Phelps v.
Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S.
1104 (2003).
Appellant Atwell also challenges the district court’s
conclusion that evidence of record could not support a finding
that Appellees deprived him of proper medical care in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. While the evidence amply demonstrates
that Mr. Atwell had a serious medical need, nothing in the record
suggests that the Appellees acted to deprive him of proper
medical care for that need. Indeed, to the extent that the
medication prescribed for him would have alleviated Mr. Atwell’s
mental health problems, the evidence of record demonstrates that
the Appellees attempted to provide the medication to Mr. Atwell.
If anyone was responsible for his failure to benefit from the
medication, Appellant Atwell was. In light of the one-sided
evidence identified by the parties, Mr. Atwell could not have
proven deliberate indifference and, therefore, could not have
established an Eighth Amendment violation. See Horn by Parks v.
Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 873 (1994). The district court properly awarded
Appellees summary judgment with respect to Appellant Atwell’s
claims that the Appellees deprived him of proper medical care.
The Appellant’s remaining § 1983 claim is that certain of
the Appellees failed to provide adequate training to Hart County
5
Jail personnel to prevent the violation of his constitutional
rights. Having concluded that Mr. Atwell could not prove that
any of his constitutional rights were violated by Hart County
Jail personnel, the district court did not err by concluding that
Appellant Atwell could not prove a failure to train in violation
of the United States Constitution. See Watkins v. Battle Creek,
273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001)(citing Los Angeles v. Heller,
475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)).
In order to prove a violation of the ADA and the parallel
provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act in the context of
detention in a county jail, Appellant Atwell would have been
required to establish that he suffered from a physical or mental
impairment that placed a “substantial” limitation on a major life
activity, such as walking, seeing or hearing. Toyota v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 195-97 (2002). The limitation must be
permanent or long-term. See id. at 198.
None of the evidence identified by Appellant Atwell in
connection with his disability discrimination claims would have
supported a finding that his mental impairments impose permanent
or long-term limitations on any major life activity. The
evidence that Mr. Atwell’s impairments may be corrected or
mitigated by medication is not disputed and, in this case,
precludes his establishing that his impairments substantially
limit him in a major life activity. See Sutton v. United Air
6
Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). The district court did
not err, therefore, in granting summary judgment to Appellees
with respect to Appellant Atwell’s claims under the ADA and the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Appellant Atwell also asserted claims under Kentucky law for
assault and battery, outrage, and infliction of emotional
distress. The district court granted Appellees summary judgment
with respect to each of those claims.
Under Kentucky law, the torts of outrage and intentional
infliction of emotional distress are premised upon extreme and
outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing emotional
distress. See Craft v. Rice, 671 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Ky. 1984). In
Appellant Atwell’s case, the same evidentiary defects that
prevent his establishing liability under the United States
Constitution for his injuries also precludes recovery for outrage
or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Having concluded that the actions of the Hart County Jail
personnel that are the basis of Appellant Atwell’s assault and
battery claim were objectively reasonable in the § 1983 context,
we further conclude that Mr. Atwell could not prove his claim
under Kentucky law. See Fultz v. Whittaker, 261 F. Supp. 2d 767,
783 (W.D.Ky. 2003). The district court did not, therefore, err
in granting summary judgment to Appellees with respect to
Appellant Atwell’s tort claims under Kentucky law.
7
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to Appellees on all of Appellant
Atwell’s claims.
8