Rodriguez v. Cahall

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JONATON O. RODRIGUEZ, )
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. No.: N20C-01-201 FJJ
v. )
)
CPL. EWEN P. CAHALL, CPL. )
ANDREW J. CASSIDY, SGT. DAVID )
HAMRICK, and )
CPL. EDWARD MADIGAN )
)
Defendants. )
Submitted: June 17, 2024
Decided: June 25, 2024
OPINION FOLLOWING TRIAL
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Herbert W. Mondros, Esquire, and Jill Bennett Gaiski, Rigrodsky Law, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Nicolas D. Picollelli and Julia Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, Office of the
Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendants.
Jones, J.
1
Plaintiff Jonatan Rodriguez (“Plaintiff” or “Rodriguez”), an inmate at
Sussex Correctional Institute (“SCI”), brings suit against four (4) SCI correctional
officers (collectively, “Defendants”) following a January 26, 2018 physical
confrontation, which he alleges involved excessive force. The correctional
officers who remain as Defendants at the close of trial are Retired Lieutenant Ewen
Cahall (“Cahall”), Lieutenant Andrew Cassidy (“Cassidy”), Lieutenant Edward
Madigan (“Madigan”), and Former Lieutenant David Hamrick (“Hamrick”).
Several other officers named in the suit were dismissed at various times before the
conclusion of the evidence. Underlying Plaintiff’s claim is the February 1, 2017
Vaughn prison riot when Lieutenant Stephen Floyd (“Floyd”) was murdered by
inmates of the prison. Rodriguez was one of several inmates charged in connection
with the murder of Floyd.
Plaintiff alleges assault and battery and civil conspiracy. Rodriguez
maintains that the force used against him on January 26, 2018 was excessive and
the Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to harm Rodriguez in retaliation for
his involvement in the February 2017 Vaughn Riot. A bench trial was held the
week of June 3, 2024. Summations occurred on June 17, 2024. This is the Court’s
decision following that bench trial.
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff testified at trial. Defense called eight (8) correctional officers
which included each Defendant. Defense also called a use of force expert, Jodie
Hunter (“Ms. Hunter”). Various documents were submitted as exhibits. A video
recording of the events of January 26, 2018 was submitted as evidence. The video
was played numerous times throughout the trial which depicted the key events
relevant to the Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims. Based on the evidence
presented, the Court finds that the following facts have been proved by a
preponderance of the evidence.
On February 1, 2017, a riot occurred at James T. Vaughn Correctional
facility, which resulted in the death of a correctional officer, Lieutenant Stephen
Floyd. The riot occurred in Building C of the facility. Several inmates were
charged with murdering Floyd, including Rodriguez. A number of those inmates
were transferred to SCI and placed in maximum security housing on Unit 4. Under
the rules of this unit, only one inmate was permitted to be outside of his cell and
roaming the tier at a time. Absent an emergency, if a correctional officer was on
the housing unit with an inmate who was not in his cell, the inmate was to be
cuffed. Given the pending charges against the inmates on this unit, the correctional
officers had orders not to engage in any conduct with the inmates that could
jeopardize the prosecution of the charges pending against them. Each of the
3
Defendants were aware of the Vaughn Riot, knew Floyd, and knew that the
inmates on housing unit 4, including Rodriguez, were charged with crimes alleging
that they were involved in the Vaughn Riot and Floyd’s death.
Rodriguez was one of the inmates on this maximum security unit at SCI.
Rodriguez, like the other inmates on the unit, was allowed an hour a day of
recreational time outside of his cell. Rodriguez was the inmate responsible for
cleaning the unit. As a result of these responsibilities, he was given an additional
30 minutes recreational time to do his cleaning work. According to Rodriguez, he
was often permitted to exceed this allotted 90 minutes outside of his cell to take a
shower when he completed cleaning the unit. The guards who were usually
assigned to this unit were aware of this practice. From Mr. Rodriguez’s
perspective, it was this practice that led to the events of the night in question.
At approximately 9:55 p.m. on January 26, 2018, Rodriguez was about to
enter the shower, located on the second floor of the tier, the same level on which
Rodriguez’s cell was located. The video footage shows Rodriguez removing his
shirt, then putting his shirt back on, and going down to the first level of the tier to
stand in front of glass windows. On the other side of these glass windows were
correctional officers and the unit’s “bubble.”1 For the next three minutes,
Rodriguez can be seen talking to whoever is on the other side of the glass. The
1
The “bubble” is a command center where correction officers who are observing the unit are located.
4
area on the other side of the glass is not visible in the video and no correctional
officers are visible on the video until the guards enter the tier. There is no audio
that goes with the video, but it is apparent as events transpire that Rodriguez is
becoming more agitated.
There is no dispute that Defendant Cassidy was on the other side of the
windows when Rodriguez first approached this area and that he and Rodriguez
communicated with each other. Rodriguez questioned Cassidy and told him that
it was usual procedure to allow Rodriguez to get a shower before locking in.
Cassidy told Rodriguez that his time was up, that he could not get his shower, and
Rodriguez had to lock in. Rodriguez asked Cassidy to get a lieutenant involved.
Cassidy again ordered Rodriguez to lock in. The video clearly shows that
Rodriguez becomes more agitated as he continues to verbally engage with Cassidy.
During this conversation, the lights on the tier flicker two different times, once at
9:56:53 p.m. and again at 9:57:10 p.m., a signal that inmates are aware means that
it is time to lock in. Cassidy again asked Rodriguez to lock in, met by Rodriguez’s
refusal.
At this point, Cahall calls SCI’s Watch Commander. The Watch
Commander was consulted, given the nature of the inmates’ charges relating to the
Vaughn Riot. A Code 6 means a failure to lock in. When a Code 6 is called the
institution goes into lock down, signaling for all available correctional officers to
5
respond to the scene to assist with the situation resulting in the Code 6. The Watch
Commander advised Cahall to call the Code 6.
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) considers a failure to lock in as a
serious offense. Under DOC Rules and Regulations, an inmate cannot refuse an
order to lock in and is not permitted to demand that a lieutenant get involved in
the situation. An inmate is permitted to file a grievance at a later date, but the
policy is clear that he cannot refuse to lock in as that jeopardizes the security of
the entire correctional facility.
The Code 6 was called, and Rodriguez’s cell door was closed at 9:58:35
p.m. so that he could no longer return to his cell. This is done to prevent an inmate
from having to ability to return to his cell to retrieve weapons. Once a Code 6 is
called, force by the correctional officers is permitted to be used on the inmate
refusing to lock in unless the inmate, on his own, puts himself into a position of
surrender. Rodriguez never put himself in a position of surrender.
Various correctional officers responded to the area outside of the door
leading into the tier. At this point Rodriguez is standing about 6 feet from the
windows and the door where the officers will enter the tier. Through the windows
Rodriguez can and did see the guards assembling outside of the tier.
At 9:59:48 p.m. correctional officers enter the tier. Cahall was the first
officer through the door. He immediately pepper sprayed Rodriguez. As Cahall
6
is approaching Rodriguez, the Plaintiff assumes a boxer stance. Rodriguez takes
a swing at Cahall and hits him in the forehead. Madigan is the second officer
through the door and goes to the right of Cahall. As Madigan approaches
Rodriguez, the Plaintiff takes a swing at Madigan and makes contact with
Madigan’s face, causing his glasses to fall to the floor and break. Other
correctional officers enter the tier including Hamrick. The officers as a group get
Rodriguez to the ground.
Rodriguez contends that the officers continued to punch and kick him while
he was on the ground. He contends specifically that Madigan punched him. The
officers testified that they were trying to get him under control to cuff his hands
and shackle his legs. The video is not clear enough to determine what was
happening on the ground except that the correctional officers were able to
eventually secure Rodriguez in handcuffs and shackles and escort him out of the
pod.
After Cahall shot the pepper spray he went to the ground with Rodriguez
and tried to control his right arm to get it behind his back to cuff him. Rodriguez
was actively resisting Cahall. While on the ground, Cahall was punched in the
face. Cahall did not punch or kick the Plaintiff.
7
After being punched by Rodriguez, Madigan assisted in getting Rodriguez
to the ground. Madigan struck the upper part of Rodriguez’s body to get him under
control. Rodriguez continued to resist until the officers got him under control.
Hamrick was in booking and receiving when he heard the Code 6. He
responded to the scene. When he entered the tier, he assisted officers in getting
Rodriguez to the ground. Rodriguez continued to resist once on the ground.
Hamrick applied three knee strikes to the back of Rodriguez’s upper thigh to get
his hands free so he could cuff him. The knee strikes were applied because
Rodriguez refused to give up his hands to be handcuffed. Once Rodriguez was
under control, Hamrick assisted in applying the leg shackles.
DOC’s Policy 8.30 is the use of force policy. All correctional officers are
trained in the use of force policy. Specifically, all the correctional officers who
testified in this case were trained in the use of force policy. The use of force policy
provides in relevant part:
The use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances
and should be used only when no other reasonable alternative
is available. If possible, staff shall take reasonable steps to
deescalate a situation or otherwise prevent the need to use
force. The use of force may not be used as a retaliatory or
disciplinary measure.
Rodriguez testified that Defendants Cassidy and Cahall had previously verbally
threatened him, saying at different times that the state was going to kill him
because of his actions in the Vaughn riot. No such allegations were made against
8
Madigan or Hamrick. All of the named Defendants and the remaining correctional
officers denied ever threatening or coercing Rodriguez in any way. Each denied
that they were seeking to retaliate against the Plaintiff based on his involvement
in the Vaughn Riot. Each denied being involved in a conspiracy against
Rodriguez. Rodriguez testified that on the night in question, Cahall said to Cassidy
just before the correctional officers entered the tier “to open the door so we can
kick his fucking ass.” Cahall and Cassidy denied that this was said.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s first two counts sound in assault and battery. A prima facie
assault case requires a general showing that a Defendant’s conduct placed the
Plaintiff in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive physical contact. 2 For
battery, a Plaintiff must establish the Defendant intentionally caused harmful or
offensive contact to the Plaintiff. 3 To recover for battery, a Plaintiff must merely
show the Defendant intended to make non-consensual contact with the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff need not prove the Defendant intended to actually cause harm. 4
A defense to an assault and battery claim in the case of an inmate is whether
the correctional officers were justified in their use of force and whether that force
was reasonable. As state employees, in order for the Defendants to be liable to the
2
See Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1361 (Del. 1995). Delaware law considers “harmful or offensive”
contact to be that which offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Id.3
See Miller v. Dockham, 723 A.2d 397 (Del. 1998).
4
See id.9
Plaintiff under any theory, including assault and battery, the Plaintiff must prove
that the alleged tortious conduct (i) did not arise out of, and in connection with,
the performance of official duties involving the exercise of discretion, (ii) was
performed in bad faith; and (iii) was performed with gross or wanton negligence.5
Plaintiff has presented no evidence as to the first element, so liability cannot
be based on the exercise of discretion element. Plaintiff has presented evidence
and argument that the Defendants acted in bad faith and their actions amounted to
gross or wanton conduct. The crux of this argument is that the Defendants used
excessive force in response to the situation, did not follow DOC policy 8.30 in
trying to take steps to deescalate the situation, and took these actions because of
Rodriguez’s alleged involvement in the Vaughn Riot.
I find as a factual matter that the guards did not use excessive force and that
their conduct was done in good faith and without gross or wanton conduct.
Defendants called Jodie Hunter as a use of force expert. Hunter, a career DOC
employee, described in detail DOC’s Use of Force Policy and the integrated Use
of Force Model. Hunter opined that, given the facts, Rodriguez, at the time the
guards entered the tier, was a resister and as soon as he threw the first punch he
became an assailant according to the Use of Force Model. Given this conclusion,
with which I agree, the guards were justified in spraying the Defendant with pepper
5
10 Del. C. § 4001.
10
spray, under the guidelines of the Use of Force policy. When Rodriguez was taken
to the ground (which was also justified and within the guidelines of the policy),
Rodriguez continued to resist which made him a resister at a minimum and more
likely an assailant. Madigan, Cahall, and Hamrick’s actions to try to get Rodriguez
under control, including but not limited to, Hamrick’s three knee strikes to
Rodriguez’s upper thigh were well within the Use of Force policy given the
circumstances. Their actions in getting Rodriguez under control were done in
good faith and did not rise to the level of gross or wanton negligence.
Rodriguez maintains that the guards should have attempted alternative
methods to bring Rodriguez under control per Department of Corrections policy
8.30. According to Plaintiff there were three alternatives. First, the guards should
have allowed Rodriquez to take a shower. Second, a lieutenant should have been
called. Third, Rodriguez should have been given the chance to cuff up.
First, with respect to the request for a shower there was testimony that had
the guards agreed to this request, they would have been put in the future position
of having to acquiesce to similar requests. This could have created chaos in the
prison. I agree with this analysis.
With respect to calling a lieutenant, the undisputed testimony is that before
the Code 6 was called, the Watch Commander, the most senior person on duty,
was notified. The Watch Commander ordered that the Code 6 should be called.
11
The individual Defendants cannot be blamed for the order of the Watch
Commander to proceed with the Code 6, especially after the number of attempts
Rodriquez was given to look in.
With respect to cuffing up, Hunter opined that given Rodriguez’s actions, a
cuff up attempt would have been fruitless. I agree with Hunter.6 Rodriguez
created this situation because he did not lock in after being given at least 3 verbal
warnings and two flick of the lights, which was understood to mean lock in.
Rodriguez saw the correctional officers gathering on the other side of the door and
instead of making an attempt to surrender started throwing his fists at the first two
officers to reach him. On these facts, I agree that a warning to cuff up would have
gone unheeded by Rodriguez and would not have resulted in a de-escalation of the
situation.
I find that the Defendants’ actions were done in good faith, without gross
or wanton negligence, were within their discretion, and done within the parameters
of the Use of Force policy. In short, the Defendants used reasonable force on a
Plaintiff who ignored their numerous orders to lock in and became an active
aggressor when confronted by the guards.
6
Hunter’s explanation of the use of force policy and its application to the present facts was credible. The same
cannot be said for other portions of her testimony. The credibility issues on other portions of her testimony did not
rise to a level that caused me to disagree with her conclusions on the appropriate use of force in this case given the
facts as I have found them.
12
Plaintiff has also alleged a civil conspiracy amongst the Defendants.
Delaware law requires a Plaintiff alleging civil conspiracy to show: (i) a
confederation or combination of two or more persons; (ii) an unlawful act done in
furtherance of the conspiracy; and (iii) actual damage.7 Proof of malice, (i.e., an
intent to injure) is essential in proof of conspiracy.8
I find that the Plaintiff has not proven that an unlawful act was done in
furtherance of the conspiracy as I find that the force used was appropriate under
the circumstances. Moreover, there is a factual dispute about whether correctional
officers threatened Rodriguez. 9 I reject the argument that the testimony of the
guards was contrived or manufactured by the defendants as a reason to justify their
actions. I find the testimony of the correctional officers that no threats were made
to be more credible than the testimony of Rodriguez for four reasons.
First, in the grievance filed by Rodriguez after this incident, there was no
mention of any threats by any correctional officers. Second, when asked in his
deposition in this case who threatened him, Rodriguez did not identify anyone.
Third, the correctional officers were under strict orders not to engage with any bad
behavior by Rodriguez and the Vaughn Riot inmates who were transferred to SCI,
so as to not impact the prosecution against them. The officers clearly were aware
7
See Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146, 150 (Del. 1987).
8
See UbiquiTel, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 2005 WL 3533697, at *8 (Del. Ch. Dec. 14, 2005).
9
This factual dispute applies only to the claims against Cahall and Cassidy as there was no evidence presented by
Plaintiff that either Madigan or Hamrick ever threatened the Plaintiff in any way.
13
of and followed this policy as evidenced by Cahall’s call to the watch commander
on the night in question to obtain further approval to call the Code 6. Fourth, I
find the correctional officers more believable than Rodriguez. In light of this, I
find that Rodriguez was not threatened or coerced by the correctional officers. 10
For the above stated reasons, I find in favor of the Defendants and judgment
is entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge
cc: File & Serve Xpress
10
I find that Madigan’s statement “we should not go in there” does not contradict this finding. It does not suggest
an attempt to retaliate especially where there is no testimony by plaintiff that Madigan ever threatened or coerced
him It could just have easily meant that not enough officers had gathered at the door of the tier when the door
was about to be opened.
14