WILLIAMSPORT – A Pennsylvania federal court has dismissed excessive force and other counts brought by an inmate at Huntingdon state prison, who claimed such force was used upon him during dry cell treatment after ingesting a razor blade.
Hector Vargas Torres first filed suit on Oct. 30, 2017 against a number of officers from Huntingdon state prison for excessive force, failure to intervene and state law claims connected to the alleged illegal treatment he received.
“The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has a policy regarding the placement of inmates in a dry cell. According to procedure, an inmate may be placed in a dry cell when he has ingested an item. Upon placement in a dry cell, the inmate is handcuffed to the bed by arm to the bunk furthest away from the toilet,” according to the decision from U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann.
“The medical department examines the restraint to ensure proper circulation. Every two hours, the handcuffs must be removed so that the inmate can exercise his arm. Even if an inmate refuses the exercise, the medical department must check an inmate’s circulation. These checks are called ‘dry cell exercises’ and are recorded on video.”
On April 18, 2017, Torres was said to have swallowed a razor blade and was brought to the hospital – but the blade was not removed at the hospital, so he was returned to the prison and placed in a dry cell and secured to the wall.
On two occasions, Torres says he was subjected to dry cell exercises against his will, while the officers countered that they attempted to merely check his circulation. Torres was said to have resisted and became combative, while the officers used control techniques to secure his free arms and legs.
“Plaintiff was not struck, slapped, or punched, and did not have his head slammed off the bunk,” Brann said, as to both dry cell exercises.
“At no point does plaintiff’s description of the ‘assault’ vary from what is depicted on the videos submitted by defendants or what is contained in their statement of facts. Rather, plaintiff’s facts attempt to describe the legal import of what is depicted on the video and what plaintiff described as the ‘assault.”
The litigation eventually led to both the plaintiff and defendants filing cross-motions for summary judgment, which came before Brann.
Brann first dismissed the excessive force claim, stating the contact made in the jail cell was in “good faith” and the plaintiff described no evidence of injuries sustained.
“The undisputed facts and video evidence plainly demonstrate that while physical contact did occur between defendants and plaintiff, it was minimal, necessary and for the benefit, health, and safety of plaintiff. Plaintiff was given every opportunity to comply with the dry cell exercise, and his response was obstructive, combative, and non-compliant. The physical contact was used in good faith and lasted only moments; it was necessary so that plaintiff’s circulation could be checked,” Brann said.
As for the failure to intervene claim, Brann explained a lack of excessive force meant that claim should also fail.
“Here, the undisputed facts cannot establish a failure to intervene claim as a matter of law. Defendants had no duty to intervene, because at no point did any excessive force occur. Further, as defendants point out, the physical force used lasted only seconds, and thus, even if the force were excessive, defendants lacked a ‘realistic and reasonable” opportunity to intervene,” Brann said.
Brann stated Torres’s sole remaining claim was a state law claim, but did not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.
“Because plaintiff’s remaining claim concerns interpretations of Pennsylvania law, and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s state law claim without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction,” Brann concluded.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:17-cv-01977
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com