United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
M. BRINKEMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Holloway, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that defendants Lieutenant C. Taylor and Officer R.
Bradley used excessive force by applying metal handcuffs
during plaintiffs transportation to a medical appointment at
the Medical College of Virginia ("MCV). Defendants have
filed a joint Motion for Summary Judgment with a supporting
memorandum of law and exhibits and provided plaintiff with
the notice required by Roseboro v. Garrison. 528
F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Rule 7(K). Plaintiff has
filed a Motion in Limine, Dkt. No. 31, to exclude from
evidence the affidavits of officers A. Boone and L.
Smallwood, which defendants included as exhibits in support
of their memorandum of law, Dkt, No. 27, and he has submitted
a "Brief, " which will be taken as his memorandum
in opposition to defendants' joint Motion for Summary
Judgment. After consideration of these submissions, the
Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, judgment will be
entered in favor of the defendants, and plaintiffs Motion in
Limine and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing will be denied.
alleges that on July 10, 2015, he was an inmate at Indian
Creek Correctional Center ("ICCC") when he was
escorted from his cell to a room in the back of the medical
department to change clothes for an appointment with his
cardiologist at MCV. Compl. § IV. Plaintiffs face sheet
and gate pass, which ordinarily would include any relevant
medical restrictions, did not contain information concerning
a metal cuff restriction. Smallwood Aff. ¶ 4. Such a
restriction, however, was noted in plaintiffs medical records
for the period from October 3, 2014 to October 3, 2015. Dkt.
No. 40, Ex. 1 at 37. Plaintiff advised the defendants that if
they required him to wear metal handcuffs during his
transportation to MCV, he would refuse to go. Compl. §
IV. At that point, Taylor grabbed plaintiff by the collar and
upper right arm and forced plaintiff against a brick wall.
Id., To maintain control over plaintiff. Officer Bradley
grabbed plaintiffs left arm, twisted it behind his back, and
the defendants held plaintiff in that position while Taylor
asked plaintiff if he was going to change his mind regarding
the metal handcuffs. Id. Plaintiff eventually agreed
to wear the metal handcuffs. Id.
have submitted affidavits which contain the following
additional facts. On the morning of July 10, 2015, plaintiff
acted aggressively and belligerently towards Bradley, used
foul language, and, in an "aggressive manner, "
refused to be searched or wear metal cuffs. Bradley Aff.
¶ 4; Taylor Aff. ¶ 5. Plaintiff was also upset
because the jumpsuit provided for his appointment was too
large, and he threw the jumpsuit back onto a shelf. Bradley
Aff. ¶ 4. Taylor attempted to talk plaintiff into
turning around to be searched, but he remained
"aggressive, argumentative, and belligerent" and
again refused to be searched. Taylor Aff. ¶ 5. Plaintiff
began walking away from Taylor when 'fay lor grabbed the
collar of plaintiff s shirt and advised plaintiff that he
needed to change for his medical run. Bradley Aff. ¶ 5;
Taylor Aff. ¶ 6. When plaintiff "struggled"
and attempted to "pull away" from Taylor, the
defendants "placed [plaintiff] up against the back wall
of the intake area." Bradley Aff. ¶ 5; Taylor Aff.
¶ 6. Because plaintiff continued to "act
aggressively, " Bradley pinned plaintiffs arm behind his
back "to obtain, and maintain, control of him, "
and Taylor advised plaintiff that "he could either get
dressed for the appointment or [defendants] would do it for
him." Bradley Aff. ¶ 5. At that point, plaintiff
calmed down, complied with the strip search, and put on the
jumpsuit. Id. According to Bradley, the force used
on plaintiff was necessary "to bring the situation under
control, " and had plaintiff "obeyed orders to be
searched in preparation for his transport, no force would
have been necessary." Id. ¶ 7.
does not expressly deny that he yelled at the defendants or
acted aggressively towards them. See Dkt. Nos. 24, 31.
Instead, in his Brief he states:
[I]t is not a good strategy for [the defendants] to insinuate
[that plaintiff] came into the medical intake unit in a rage.
Every inmate welcomes the chance to [sic] Richmond. But, to
prevail the defendants know they must risk perjury or its
equivalent. The defendants [sic] version of events uses an
interpretation of my frame of mind, unfortunately that
elaborate and graphic fabrication is inconsistent with the
frame of mind 1 had.
But, for reasons beyond what the defendants and their
witnesses claim, [sic] It was decided right before my eyes to
disregard duty, procedures, rules, rights, and my medical
condition. And I was helpless, in fear for my safty [sic] I
tryed [sic] to place myself beyond harms [sic] way. But it
became an exercise in cruel and unusual punishment. And
whether they thought they could get away with the unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain and injury, is evident in the
(1) unrealistic story, the (2) inconsistent statements, (3)
contradictions and (4) lies in their defense.
Dkt. No. 35 at 11, 15. In addition, plaintiff states
"[i]t is also hinted that the plaintiff was animated and
belligerant [sic] by the words loud and aggressive. That
sounds like the behavior of a man out of his mind and
intimidating. I don't think I could intimidate Lieuenant
[sic] Taylor and certainly not Officer Bradley." Dkt.
No. 24 at 15.
deny any knowledge of a medical restriction requiring
plaintiff to be restrained using plastic cuffs. Bradley Aff.
¶ 8. More specifically, Bradley states that he did not
have access to any of plaintiff s medical records or medical
orders. Id. Taylor states that, had plaintiff
advised Taylor of any medical restrictions, he would have
verified those restrictions with institutional medical staff
before preparing plaintiff for transport. Taylor Aff. ¶
7. Plaintiff alleges that he advised Taylor that he could not
wear metal cuffs because he was taking blood thinners that
caused "bruising and swelling at almost the simplest
contact/' and an exemption order to that effect could be
found in plaintiffs medical file. Compl. § IV; Dkt. No.
31 at 2.
contends that, when provided this information, Taylor laughed
at plaintiff, advised plaintiff that he did not have time to
check plaintiffs medical file, and stated that plaintiff
"would be wearing [metal handcuffs] that day." Dkt.
No. 31 at 2. According to plaintiff, when he told the
defendants that he would refuse to go to his medical
appointment if they required him to wear metal handcuffs,
Taylor grabbed plaintiff by the collar, twisted his right arm
behind his back, and pinned him against a cement wall;
Bradley grabbed plaintiffs left arm and pinned it behind his
back. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was held with
his arms behind his back, and he only agreed to wear metal
cuffs because of the pain he was suffering and his fear
"for his life" due to his medical condition. Dkt.
No. 31 at 2; Dkt. No. 35 at 2.
alleges that he had bruising and swelling on his shoulders,
arms, hands, ankles, legs, and knees and could not walk for
weeks following this incident. Dkt. No. 31 at 3; Dkt. No. 35
at 2; however, the medical records from July 10, 2015
contradict most of those allegations by not mentioning any
swelling or complaints of pain in plaintiffs arms or legs.
Dkt. No. 40, Ex. 1 at 17. A treatment note from July 11,
2015, only mentions "a large dark blue/black bruise to
[his] L bicep and swelling (soft) to [his] R elbow."
There is also a reference to "a small soft nodule to
[the] top of [his] R foot, " but plaintiff reported
having had the nodule for seven days, which means it was
unrelated to the incident at issue. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.
medical records also belie his contention that he was unable
to walk for weeks following the incident. See Dkt. No. 40,
Ex. 1. Although the July 11, 2015 treatment notes reflect
that plaintiff reported having swollen feet, his feet did
"not appear swollen at [that] time." Dkt. No. 1,
Ex. 1. Treatment notes dated July 17, 2015 reflect that
plaintiff was "agitated" and "cursing"
because he had been advised that "his condition was
stable" and he did not need to be in the medical unit,
notwithstanding plaintiffs opinion that he should "have
his meals and meds served to him" in the medical unit.
Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1. September 9, 2015 medical records document
that plaintiff complained of leg and arm swelling along with
bruising from wearing cuffs, but the nurse noted "no
edema on exam today" and plaintiff stated that the
"bruising is better." Id. at 13. Moreover,
no leg or arm injuries were noted in the medical history
portion of plaintiffs September 9, 2015 records. Id.
plaintiff contends that several statements in the affidavits
provided by defendants are contradictory. Dkt. No. 31 at 5.
More specifically, plaintiff appears to allege that if the
defendants and other officers acknowledged that plaintiff was
yelling and talking loudly, then they cannot simultaneously
assert that plaintiff did not inform them of his metal cuff
restriction. Id. at 7. Plaintiff further alleges,
without any elaboration, that defendants advance an
unrealistic story, rife with inconsistencies, contradictions,
and lies. Dkt. No. 35 at 15. Moreover, plaintiff contends,