United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD WEBBER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 28].
Bailey, (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the Missouri
Department of Corrections, filed a complaint alleging Britney
Coffman, Matthew Reed, Christine Henson and Steven Brouk
(“Defendants”) used excessive force and were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. [ECF
No. 1] Defendants argue Plaintiff cannot show his claims rise
to the level of any constitutional violation, and therefore
his claims against Defendants fail as a matter of law. [ECF
No. 30] Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants'
motion, even after the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to
show cause why the Court should not grant Defendants'
motion order by September 14, 2016. [ECF No. 33].
did not respond to Defendants' Statement of Material
Facts [ECF No. 29], as required under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP”) 56 and Local Rule 4.01(E).
Plaintiff's status as a pro se prisoner does not
excuse him from responding to Defendants' motion
“with specific factual support for his claims to avoid
summary judgment, ”, or from complying with local
rules. Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir.
2001); see Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 373
(8th Cir. 1983; Carman v. Treat, 7 F.3d 1379, 1381
(8th Cir. 1993) (failing to allow pro se prisoner to
disregard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). With his failure
to respond, Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted all of the
facts in Defendants' statement of uncontroverted facts.
Turner v. Shinseki, No. 4:08-CV-1910 CAS, 2010 WL
2555114, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Jun. 22, 2010) (citing Deichmann
v. Boeing Co., 36 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1168 (E.D.Mo. 1999),
aff'd 232 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 877); Davis v. Webb, No.
4:11-CV-1906-JAR, 2014 WL 1314938, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 28,
2014), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 1809680 (E.D.
Mo. May 7, 2014), and aff'd 590 F.App'x 655
(8th Cir. 2015); Foster v. Lombardi, No. 1:12-CV-116
JAR, 2014 WL 636042, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 18, 2014).
judgment is not granted for Defendants as a result of
Plaintiff's failure to properly respond to
Defendant's statement of material facts. Instead, the
Court deems the facts set forth by Defendants as true.
Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 579
(8th Cir. 2006). Defendants must still establish they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Autry Morlan
Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. v. RJF Agencies, Inc., 332
S.W.3d 184, 191 (Mo.Ct.App. 2010) (citations omitted). The
Court has also reviewed video recordings of the incidents.
[ECF Nos. 30-4, 30-5, 30-6, 30-10]. While the videos do not
allow for a perfect depiction of what occurred, they
generally depict the facts as described by Defendants. The
facts are as follows.
is an inmate incarcerated at Southeast Correctional Center in
Charleston, Missouri, but at all relevant times during his
complaint he was incarcerated at Potosi Correctional Center
(“PCC”), in the Missouri Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”). [ECF Nos. 34, 29 at ¶
1]. Defendants Britney Coffman, Christine Henson, Matthew
Reed, and Steven Brouk were correctional officers employed by
MDOC at PCC during all relevant times of this lawsuit. [ECF
No. 29 at ¶ 2]
December 23, 2014 Defendants Henson and Coffman escorted
Plaintiff from his cell to administrative segregation, and
Plaintiff began to insult, threaten and spit at Defendants
Henson and Coffman. Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.
Defendant Reed joined the escort, where Plaintiff continued
to be verbally combative. Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff
was then brought to the medical unit where he refused
treatment. Id. at ¶ 7.
which spit, threaten or are belligerent pose safety risks to
officers and other inmates. Id. at ¶ 8. Outside
of the infirmary, Defendant Henson placed Plaintiff against a
wall, ordered him to be quiet and Plaintiff continued to be
verbally combative and physically resistant. Id. at
¶¶ 10-11. Defendant Henson then forced Plaintiff
against a wall, and issued a second warning. Id. at
¶ 11. Plaintiff then attempted to avoid being taken to
the ground by Defendants, and it took cooperative effort by
more than four additional officers to regain physical control
of Plaintiff. Id. at ¶¶ 12-14. As a result
of the incident, Defendant Reed sought medical attention for
a head injury, Defendant Coffman sought medical attention for
an elbow injury, and Plaintiff suffered a minor lip
laceration, cuts on his legs and a sore shoulder.
Id. at ¶¶ 15-17.
Plaintiff was secured in a cell by multiple corrections
officers, Defendant Reed attempted to remove Plaintiff's
restraints through a food port in the door. Id. at
¶ 18. After having partially removed his restraints,
Plaintiff grabbed Defendant Reed's arm and tried to pull
it through the port. Id. at ¶ 19. Defendant
Reed then pulled back on Plaintiff's arm, since a
partially removed restraint may be a weapon, and Plaintiff
received scrapes and bruises from the pull. Id. at
¶¶ 20-21. Plaintiff requested a nurse after the
incident, requesting the nurse clean blood off of him,
refused any additional medical treatment and did not mention
any injuries received by any Defendant. Id. at
¶¶ 22 -23, 25. Defendants Coffman, Henson and Reed
were not assigned to administrative segregation on this day,
and were only tasked with bringing Plaintiff to
administrative segregation. Id. at ¶ 24.
January 9, 2015, Defendant Brouk witnessed Plaintiff flushing
contraband down the toilet, Plaintiff knew this was against
the rules, and Plaintiff refused Defendant Brouk's
instructions to cease flushing items down the toilet and
submit to restraints. Id. at ¶¶ 26-29.
Defendant Brouk then sprayed Plaintiff with a short burst of
pepper spray, in accordance with policy preventing
destruction of contraband. Id. at ¶¶
30-31. After Plaintiff failed to comply Defendant Brouk
sprayed Plaintiff with pepper spray, again. Id. at
¶ 32. Plaintiff then complied, was restrained by
Defendant Brouk, and Plaintiff was permitted to see a nurse
for eye drops. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.
filed an Informal Resolution Request (“IRR”) for
the incident on December 23, 2014, alleging he was assaulted
by Defendant Henson in anger, requested an immediate transfer
away from Defendant Hensen, and requested the video
recordings of the incident be reviewed. Id. at
¶ 35, [ECF No. 30-12 at 2]. Plaintiff alleges he filed a
grievance, after his IRR was denied. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff
does not reveal with whom he filed this grievance, and to
whom he addressed it. [ECF No. 29 at ¶ 39]. There is no
evidence in his file suggesting a grievance was filed.
Id. at ¶ 36. After the denial of the IRR,
Plaintiff also wrote a letter to Deputy Warden Jamie Crupp,
asking why she had not reviewed the video. [ECF No. 30-12 at
5]. Deputy Warden responded she had reviewed the video and
believed the violations he received were justified.
Id. at 4.