Bafford v. Simmons

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 3 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHNATHAN WILLIAM BAFFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 04-3136
CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of
(District of Kansas)
Corrections, in his individual and
(D.C. No. 02-CV-3253-GTV)
official capacity; MICHAEL
NELSON, Warden, in his individual
and official capacity; K. VAIL, SST.,
El Dorado Correctional Facility,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion requesting oral argument is denied and the case
is ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Johnathan William Bafford appeals the district court’s
dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Bafford complains that Defendants have violated his Eight Amendment right to be
free from cruel and excessive punishment. He alleges that a prison guard
assaulted him during an incident in the prison. Bafford sought only monetary
damages.
The district court ordered the preparation of a Martinez report and
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Martinez v. Aaron , 570 F.2d
317, 319 (10th Cir. 1978). The district court granted the motion, concluding
that: (1) the claims asserted against the Defendants in their official capacities
were barred by the Eleventh Amendment: (2) the claims asserted against
defendants Simmons and Nelson in their individual capacities failed because
Bafford had not asserted that either defendant personally participated in the
alleged use of force; and (3) defendant Vail was entitled to qualified immunity.
We have reviewed the record, the appellate briefs, and the applicable law
and conclude that the district court’s resolution of Bafford’s claims was proper.
The uncontroverted evidence in the record demonstrates that Bafford instigated a
disturbance in the prison and that defendant Vail acted in response. Despite
-2-
Bafford’s argument that a factual dispute exists over whether his injuries were
caused by defendant Vail or were, instead, self-inflicted, this factual dispute is
not material. Even assuming that Bafford’s injuries were caused by defendant
Vail, Bafford has failed to show that the force used by Vail was applied
“maliciously and sadistically” to cause harm rather than “in a good-faith effort to
maintain or restore discipline.” Hudson v. McMillian 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992)
(quotation omitted).
Bafford’s motion requesting permission to file a supplemental brief is
granted. The district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants is
affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. Bafford is
reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial payments until his
appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-