WILLIAMSPORT – After a settlement was completed in excessive force litigation brought by a prisoner currently in state custody against a number of corrections officials at SCI-Rockview, a federal judge ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff Erik Barclay’s lawsuit was originally lodged against a number of corrections officer defendants – named only Stabley, McCurdy, Campbell, McHenry, Lee, Kauert, Phillips and Ortiz in the complaint – in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 28, 2019, and then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 2, 2019.
Barclay explained that on May 17, 2017, Stabley and McCurdy entered his cell at SCI-Rockview. Defendant Stabley grabbed plaintiff’s arm, grabbed him by the neck, body-slammed him onto the concrete floor, and then called for backup.
While plaintiff was restrained on the floor, Barclay claimed that defendant McCurdy began punching and kicking plaintiff in the back, neck, elbows and legs areas of his body. At some unspecified point, plaintiff was handcuffed and remained on the ground.
Barclay added that defendants McHenry, Lee and Kauert then entered his cell, and they placed their feet on his neck and ankle, and then began punching him. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant McHenry then kicked plaintiff’s right elbow and defendant Rogers also participated in the assault.
“Plaintiff was escorted to the infirmary by defendants Phillips and Ortiz, who, while plaintiff was handcuffed, forcibly twisted his arms and shoulders upward to purposefully cause injury and inflict pain on him,” U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Matthew W. Brann stated.
“The infirmary staff noted bruising, swelling, cuts, scrapes, and bleeding. Since then, plaintiff has suffered ongoing damage to his neck and back from the injuries he incurred. After plaintiff was released from the infirmary, he was placed in solitary confinement.”
When he tried to file a grievance, Barclay contended this attempt was denied and he filed necessary appeals.
In response to the suit, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to certain defendants, which then supposedly barred his claim brought pursuant to Section 1983 as a matter of law as against those defendants.
Specifically, the defendants conceded that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies against defendants Stabley, McCurdy, and Rogers, but argue that he has failed to do so against defendants McHenry, Lee, Kauert, Phillips, and Ortiz (the moving defendants), as they were not mentioned by name in the initial grievance.
The defendants filed for summary judgment on Aug. 4, arguing that any force used was appropriate in light of the need to restore order and furthermore, given that weapons were found in the plaintiff’s cell.
“The plaintiff’s active resistance required the use of force, especially in light of the fact that the plaintiff had two weapons in his cell. The only injury noted when the plaintiff was examined by medical staff was a superficial abrasion on his elbow, which is certainly not a serious concern. Thus, any force used by the defendants was reasonable, considering that the plaintiff was resisting and attempted to discard two weapons in his cell. Therefore, the defendants should be entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim as to using force to subdue the plaintiff in his cell, as any force used was reasonable under the circumstances,” the summary judgment motion stated.
“Moreover, the plaintiff has not established the personal involvement of several Defendants. Indeed, while he named Stabley, McCurdy, McHenry, Lee, and Kauert as assaulting him in his cell, he conceded that he was almost entirely speculating as to the identity of the individuals committing force against him. This is insufficient to establish the personal involvement of McHenry, Lee and Kauert. A plaintiff alleging excessive force cannot simply ‘haul before a jury all officers who were in the immediate vicinity of where excessive force occurred without any proof of their personal involvement.’ As the Third Circuit aptly noted, ‘That is simply not the law.”
Per the defendants, while the plaintiff speculates that defendants McHenry, Lee, and Kauert also assaulted him, he did not specifically identify them as assaulting him and concedes that additional officers were also present during this time.
“The named defendants cannot be held liable for any use of force simply because they were present when the force occurred and because the plaintiff thinks they may have been involved,” per defense counsel.
On Jan. 12, Brann granted the summary judgment motion in one respect only and dismissed defendants Phillips and Ortiz from the case – while denying the remainder of the entire motion.
“In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants forcibly twisted his arm and rotator cuff to cause him injury while they were walking to the medical department. Video evidence, however, glaringly contradicts this account, as it does not show any instance in which defendants forcibly twisted plaintiff’s arms or otherwise applied excessive force while transporting him to the hospital,” Brann said.
“In this case, the only instance depicted in the video evidence that could be characterized as force is an approximately 13-second period when one of the officers briefly lifts up plaintiff’s hand and then the officer puts his hand under plaintiff’s arm. At best, this portion of the video depicts de minimis force that is not sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim. Accordingly, I will grant summary judgment, to the extent that plaintiff complains of excessive force while defendants were transporting him to the prison’s medical unit. Because defendants Phillips and Ortiz are only named as defendants with respect to this claim, I will dismiss them from the case.”
UPDATE
On June 2, mediator Joseph A. Barrett submitted a report to Brann indicating that the case had been resolved. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.
“The matter is settled. Thank you for appointing me to serve as mediator in this case,” Barrett’s report said.
Brann further ordered the action to be dismissed without prejudice on June 10.
“In light of Joseph A. Barrett, Esquire’s report to the Court indicating that this matter has settled, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party, upon good cause shown, to reinstate the action within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated. It is further ordered that the Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement,” Brann stated.
The plaintiff represented himself in this matter.
The defendants were represented by Caleb Curtis Enerson of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:19-cv-02054
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com