United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
JASON R. JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
T. LARGE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELIZABETH K. DILLON, ELIZABETH K. DILLON UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jason
R. Jordan, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
claims against Defendant Sergeant T. Large for violation of
his Eighth Amendment rights and retaliation while Jordan was
incarcerated at the Red Onion State Prison. (Dkt. No. 1) Sgt.
Large filed a motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 17), to
which Jordan responded, and this matter is ripe for
disposition. Upon review of the record, the court concludes
that Sgt. Large's motion for summary judgment is denied.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
parties describe a distinctly and materially different series
of events on July 15, 2016. Jordan alleges in his verified
complaint that on July 15, 2016, he was placed in the shower
while Sgt. Large searched his cell for contraband. After the
cell search, Sgt. Large told Jordan that he found
Jordan's radio and headphones, which Lieutenant Day
“authorize[d]” him to intentionally break
“because” Jordan had filed a prison grievance and
lawsuit. Jordan and Sgt. Large had a heated exchange
regarding the damage to his personal property which resulted
in Jordan receiving a disciplinary charge for threatening
bodily harm. Following the altercation, Sgt. Large and two
other correctional officers escorted Jordan in full
restraints from the D-6 pod to the D-3 pod. The two
correctional officers walked by Jordan's side while Sgt.
Large followed immediately behind with a handheld camera to
video the transport. As the group exited the D-6 pod into the
prison yard en route to the D-3 pod, Jordan went out of view
of all camera surveillance, at which time Sgt. Large
“aggressively” kicked Jordan from behind, between
the legs, causing serious pain to his testicles. Jordan
claims that he did not display any physical or aggressive
behavior to cause Sgt. Large to kick him. Rather, Jordan
contends that Sgt. Large kicked him because Jordan had filed
a grievance and lawsuit against prison officials. (Compl. at
3, Dkt. No. 1)
Jordan
was then placed in the D-3 segregation housing unit, where he
states he repeatedly asked for, but was denied, medical
treatment. On July 16, 2016, Jordan spoke with a nurse during
pill call about his injury because he had blood in his urine.
Later that day, another nurse examined him briefly and
advised him to file a sick call request form for further
medical examination. The request was processed, and another
nurse examined Jordan on July 20, 2016, during which
examination Jordan alleges that the nurse
“clearly” observed and “verified” the
injury to Jordan's testicles which were swollen and had
dried blood and pus. The nurse then requested that Jordan
receive treatment from a doctor, including x-rays and
medication for his pain. (Compl. at 4, Dkt. No. 1)
In his
motion for summary judgment, Sgt. Large describes a different
series of events on July 15, 2016. Sgt. Large contends that,
at approximately 1:40 pm, Jordan was placed in the D-6 shower
while correctional officers searched his cell for contraband.
When Sgt. Large found and confiscated Jordan's radio,
Jordan yelled from the shower for staff to talk to him. Sgt.
Large recalls that when he went to the shower area, Jordan
was agitated and stated, “You bitches don't
remember me from C building. I go hard and you are about to
get some.” Due to this statement, Sgt. Large placed an
institutional disciplinary charge against Jordan for
threatening bodily harm. (Large Aff. ¶ 5 & Encl. A)
The
pendency of the disciplinary charge and the perceived threat
towards prison staff required that correctional officers
transport Jordan from D-6 to the D-3 pre-detention housing
unit in full restraints. During the transport, two officers
walked on either side of Jordan while Sgt. Large, as a
supervisor, followed several feet behind them. Sgt. Large
states he “never touched, kicked, or otherwise placed
his hands on Jordan” and claims that video footage from
the D-3 and D-6 security cameras corroborates his account of
events, including that he never had a handheld video camera
and that the group remained in video surveillance at all
times. (Large Aff. ¶¶ 6, 8) Sgt. Large alleges that
the video footage shows “Jordan's gait remained
normal and unaffected throughout the entire escort.”
(Mot. Summ. J. at 4, Dkt. No. 18) Sgt. Large contends that
Jordan never asked to see a nurse, did not file an emergency
grievance, and did not seek medical attention for any
testicular injury during pill pass that day or at any time
before July 20, 2016. (Large Aff. ¶ 9) The initial
physical examination on July 20, when Jordan first complained
of having been kicked, did not reveal any testicular
injuries. (See Phipps Aff. ¶ 11)
Sgt.
Large argues that Jordan's excessive force claim is
meritless because it is directly contradicted by the
surveillance video footage and that Sgt. Large is nonetheless
entitled to qualified immunity.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Summary Judgment Standard
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that a court should
grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “As
to materiality, … [o]nly disputes over facts that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). The dispute over a material fact must be genuine,
“such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.” Id.; see also JKC
Holding Co. v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d
459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). As such, the moving party is
entitled to summary judgment if the evidence supporting a
genuine issue of material fact “is merely colorable or
is not significantly probative[.]” Anderson,
477 U.S. at 250.
The
moving party bears the burden of proving that judgment on the
pleadings is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). If the moving party meets this
burden, then the nonmoving party must set forth specific,
admissible facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact for
trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In considering a motion
for summary judgment, the court must view the record as a
whole and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 322-324; Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th
Cir. 1994). However, the nonmoving party may not rely on
beliefs, conjecture, speculation, or conclusory allegations
to defeat a motion for summary judgment.[1] Baber v.
Hosp. Corp. of Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir.
1992). The evidence set forth must meet the
“substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would
apply at a trial on the merits.” Mitchell v. Data
Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1315-16 (4th Cir. 1993).
B.
Excessive Force
The
parties could not more sharply dispute the facts as to what
occurred. Jordan alleges that Sgt. Large kicked his testicles
from behind while he was being transported in full
restraints, despite not displaying any physical or aggressive
behavior. Alternatively, Sgt. Large contends that the
surveillance video confirms that he never touched or kicked
Jordan. The court finds that genuine disputes ...