Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_12-cv-04094/USCOURTS-alnd-4_12-cv-04094-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

JAMES ALLEN FORESTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO

)

SERGEANT BRUCE T. HODGE, )

 et al., )

)

Defendants )

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On November 22, 2012, plaintiff, James Allen Forester (“Mr. Forester”), was

an inmate at the St. Clair Correctional Facility (“St. Clair”), in Springville, Alabama.

Sergeant Bruce T. Hodge (“Sergeant Hodge”), Correctional Officers Justin Guthery

(“Officer Guthery”) and Christopher Dixon (“Officer Dixon”) were on duty at St.

Clair on November 22, 2012. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Mr. Forester and two

other inmates, Jermaine Tillman (“Mr. Tillman”) and Jordan Waller (“Mr. Waller”)

were in the infirmary. All three inmates were handcuffed behind their backs and wore

leg shackles. Sergeant Hodge and Officer Gutherywere escorting the inmates. Officer

Dixon was filling out reports at a desk in the infirmary. After the other two inmates

were treated, a nurse said infirmary was over without Mr. Forester having been seen.

FILED

 2015 Aug-05 PM 01:48

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 12
Mr. Forester became upset and verbally protested. Sergeant Hodge directed Mr.

Forester to leave and return to his cell. Mr. Forester did not comply and protested that

he had not been treated. Sergeant Hodge again directed Mr. Forester to leave. Mr.

Forester again did not comply. Sergeant Hodge again directed Mr. Forester to go back

to his cell. Mr. Forester said he could not. There is no evidence that Sergeant Hodge

knew that the reason Mr. Forester could not comply was because his pants leg had

gotten caught under his foot, preventing him from walking. Mr. Forester reached

down to free his foot and, due to the close proximity of Sergeant Hodge, Mr.

Forester’s foot, which was clad in prison-issued soft-soled fabric shoes, came into

contact with Sergeant Hodge’s shin. Sergeant Hodge yelled “He kicked me!” and

threw Mr. Forester to the floor. 

According to the defendant officers, Officer Guthery came over a distance of

about 5 feet and assisted Sergeant Hodge with securing Mr. Forester. Officer Guthery

lay across Mr. Forester’slegsto keep him fromkicking again. Mr. Forester continued

to struggle. Sergeant Hodge got on top of Mr. Forester’s back and applied a

mandibular angle pressure point hold to cause pain so that Mr. Forester would stop

moving. Sergeant Hodge then pulled Mr. Forester to his feet and said words to the

effect, “Do you want more?” and “Have you had enough?” Officer Dixon never left

his desk. 

2

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 12
According to Mr. Forester, he was totally restrained after he was taken to the

ground. Nonetheless, Sergeant Hodge put his knee on Mr. Forester’s back and

delivered 5 to 7 closed-fist blowsto the back of Mr. Forester’s head. Officers Guthery

and Dixon failed to intervene to stop Sergeant Hodge from hitting Mr. Forester in the

head.

Mr. Forester has sued Sergeant Hodge for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that Sergeant Hodge was acting under color of law and exerted excessive

force. Mr. Forester’s claims against Officers Guthery and Dixon are also brought

under § 1983 and allege that Officers Guthery and Dixon failed to intervene to

prevent Sergeant Hodge from using excessive force. 

The case proceeded to a non-jury trial. Upon consideration of the evidence and

testimony presented, and the arguments of counsel, the following findings of fact and

conclusions of law are issued in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

52(a)(1) in support of the Court's determination that Mr. Forester has failed to prove

his case by a preponderance of the evidence against any of the defendants.

I. FACTUAL OVERVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Forester filed this action against Sergeant Hodge and Officers Guthery and

Dixon on December 13, 2012. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Forester alleged that

these defendants deprived him of rights accorded to him by the United States

3

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 12
Constitution. On July 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge John E. Ott ordered the defendants

to file a Special Report. (Order, doc. 10). After two requests for extensions of time

to file that Special Report were granted, the defendants, on October 11, 2013, filed

their Special Report (doc. 25), which the magistrate judge treated as a Motion for

Summary Judgment. (See Order, doc. 26). Mr. Forester, acting pro se, after receiving

an extension of time, responded to the Special Report on January 8, 2014 (doc. 32).

On July 7, 2014, the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation (doc.

33), recommending that all of Mr. Forester’s claims be dismissed except his claims

against the defendants in their individual capacities for excessive force after the

takedown (against Sergeant Hodge) and for failure to intervene (against Officers

Guthery and Dixon). No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. On

August 7, 2014, the undersigned adopted the report and recommendation and

dismissed all of Mr. Forester’s claims except his claims against the defendantsin their

individual capacitiesfor excessive force after the takedown (against Sergeant Hodge)

and for failure to intervene (against Officers Guthery and Dixon). (Doc. 34). The case

proceeded to trial against the defendants on those claims.

II. TRIAL EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 22, 2012, Mr. Forester was a prisoner housed at St. Clair. All

three defendants were at all relevant times on duty as correctional officers. Sometime

4

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 12
before 10:00 pm, Mr. Forester, and inmates Jermaine Tillman (“Mr. Tillman”) and

Jordan Waller (“Mr. Waller”), were at the infirmary within St. Clair, together with

two nurses, Nurse Ferris and Nurse Klinner, and the three defendant officers.

Sergeant Hodge’s and Officer Guthery’s relevant duty at that time was to escort the

inmates from the infirmary back to their cells. Officer Dixon’s relevant duty at that

time was to complete security logs in the infirmary. At all relevant times, all three

inmates were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs and also wore leg

shackles.

The other two inmates were treated by the nursing staff that night, but Mr.

Forester was not. Mr. Forester became irate when Sergeant Hodge told himto go back

to his cell even though Mr. Forester had not been treated for a painful infected open

wound in his groin. He yelled about the lack of treatment and did not comply with

Sergeant Hodge’s repeated directives to go back to his cell. Sergeant Hodge put his

hand on Mr. Forester’s shoulder to get him in escort position, but Mr. Forester spun

around and ended up with his back against the wall. Mr. Forester pulled on his pants

to free his left foot and his foot came in contact with Sergeant Hodge’s left knee.

Sergeant Hodge reasonably perceived that contact to be a kick and yelled “He kicked

me!” Although Sergeant Hodge was not injured by the kick, he immediately took Mr.

Forester to the ground, face first. Officer Guthery ran over to assist Sergeant Hodge

5

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 12
because Mr. Forester was still “squirming” and “being combative.” Officer Guthery

lay across Mr. Forester’s legs so that he could not kick again. Sergeant Hodge lay on

the upper portion of Mr. Forester’s back and, because he was still resisting, Sergeant

Hodge, who isright-handed, used hisright hand to apply a mandibular pressure point

hold to cause Mr. Forester pain. Mr. Forester stopped struggling and lay still. At that

point, the incident was over. It lasted at most 15 to 20 seconds. Officer Dixon never

left his desk.

Because Officer Guthery was lying sideways across Mr. Forester’s legs and

Sergeant Hodge was lying on Mr. Forester’s back, Officer Guthery could only see up

Sergeant Hodge’s right side. He could see Sergeant Hodge’s right hand, but not his

left hand. Both Officer Guthery and Officer Dixon saw Sergeant Hodge use his right

hand to apply a mandibular pressure point hold on Mr. Forester. Mr. Forester insists

that Sergeant Hodge punched and hit him six or seven times, striking at least some

of the blows with his right hand. Both Officer Dixon and Officer Guthery testified

that they never saw Sergeant Hodge hit or punch Mr. Forester.

Two body charts of Mr. Forester were prepared, one by Nurse Ferris and one

by Nurse Klinner. Collectively, these body charts show a slight laceration above his

left eyebrow, a very slight laceration at the right corner of his mouth, and a contusion

to the bridge of his nose. A body chart was also prepared of Sergeant Hodge, showing

6

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 12
a contusion to his left knee and contusions to the knuckles of his right hand. 

There is no dispute that Mr. Forester was injured, although his injuries were

slight. At most, his glasses were slung off his body and he received a small shallow

laceration above his left eyebrow, a smaller laceration at the right corner of his

mouth, and a contusion to the bridge of his nose.

Sergeant Hodge completed an incident report and admitted that, although St.

Clair policy required that photographs be uploaded with any incidentreport involving

injuries to an employee or a prisoner, he did not upload any photographs of himself

or Mr. Forester with the incident report. Sergeant Hodge stated that no photographs

were taken of him, which the court credits because Sergeant Hodge also states he was

not injured. However, in light of Sergeant Hodge’s admission that Mr. Forester was

injured, that photographs of injured inmates were taken in 2012, Mr. Forester’s

consistent statements under oath (from the December 2012 date of his initial

complaint forward) that photographs were taken of him, and the fact that the St. Clair

policy and procedure manual1required that photographs of injured prisoners be taken,

the court credits Mr. Forester’s testimony that pictures of his injuries were taken.

2

1

 Mr. Forester subpoenaed for trial the St. Clair policy and procedure manual in effect on

November 22, 2012. By producing the manual they produced, the defendants waived any

argument that such manual was not in effect as to all policies relevant to the issues in this case.

2

 The pictures were requested but not produced by defendants.

7

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 12
The court notes the multiple inconsistencies in various statements made by

Sergeant Hodge and Officer Guthery as written in Sergeant Hodge’s body chart,

Sergeant Hodge’s Incident Report, Sergeant Hodge’s affidavit, Officer Guthery’s

affidavit, and their testimony at trial. However, the court finds that none of the

inconsistencies are about facts that are important enough to cause the undersigned to

discredit the testimony of Sergeant Hodge and Officer Guthery as to Sergeant

Hodge’s actions after the takedown, especially in light of the fact that Officer Dixon,

who did not even touch Mr. Forester, and who was not otherwise shown to be

unreliable, corroborated the testimony of Sergeant Hodge and Officer Guthery.

Furthermore, the court notes that Mr. Forester’s injuries consisted of a

contusion to the bridge of his nose and slight lacerations above his left eyebrow and

at the right corner of his mouth. The court further notes Mr. Forester’s own testimony

that his glasses were “slung” off his face and his nose hit the floor during the

takedown, causing the contusion to Mr. Forester’s nose. The court further notes that

both Mr. Tillman and Mr. Forester testified that Sergeant Hodge put his knee on Mr.

Forester’s back and delivered multiple closed-fist blowsto the back of Mr. Forester’s

head.

The court credits the version of the facts regarding Sergeant Hodge’s acts as

stated by Sergeant Hodge, Officer Guthery, and Officer Dixon at trial, and

8

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 12
accordingly discredits the testimony of Mr. Forester and Mr. Tillman to the extent

that such testimony is in conflict with such testimony.

3 More specifically, the

undersigned credits the testimony of Sergeant Hodge, Officer Guthery, and Officer

Dixon that Sergeant Hodge did not hit or punch Mr. Forester after Mr. Forester was

taken to the ground. Further, Mr. Forester admits that the contusion to his nose was

caused by the takedown itself, and so was not caused by the alleged blows. The court

finds that Mr. Forester has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

any of his injuries were caused after the takedown, as opposed to by the takedown

itself.4

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Section 1983 provides a vehicle for bringing claims for constitutional

violations committed under color of state law. To prevail, Mr. Forester must

3

 The undersigned is very concerned about the content of a “manifesto” advocating cruel

treatment of, and indicating a callous disregard for the very humanity of, inmates at St. Clair that

was posted by a St. Clair correctional officer, Brian Fife, and reposted by Officer Guthery on

Officer Guthery’s facebook page. No such attitude was shown to be attributable to Sergeant

Hodge or Officer Dixon, however. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Officer Guthery’s

posting is insufficient on these facts to discredit Officer Guthery’s testimony in this case.

4

 In reaching this conclusion, the court takes pains to state that it gives no credence to the

testimony of David Pavlakovick, M.D., who was called by the defendants as an expert “in the

field of correctional medicine.” (Doc. 65 at 2). While on the witness stand, Dr. Pavlakovick

admitted that he signed not one but two Rule 26 reports without reviewing or even receiving a

copy of Mr. Forester’s medical file even though both reports stated that “All of [the] opinions are

expressed with a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon ... education, training, and

experience in conjunction with [a] review of Mr. Forrester’s medical file.” 

9

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 12
demonstrate both that the defendant officers deprived himof a rightsecured under the

United States Constitution or federal law and that the deprivation occurred under

color of state law. Arrington v. Cobb Cnty., 139 F.3d 865, 872 (11th Cir.1998). “A

person acts under color of state law when he acts with authority possessed by virtue

of his employment with the state.” Griffin v. City of Opa–Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303

(11th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). 

The issue of whether any of the defendant officers acted under color of state

law is not contested. Nor do any of the defendant officers dispute that, under Mr.

Forester’s version of the facts, Sergeant Hodge violated Mr. Forester’s constitutional

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and Officer Guthery and Officer

Dixon violated that right by failing to intervene to stop Sergeant Hodge. Finally, the

courtfindsthat Mr. Forester has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

he sustained the following injuries: a contusion to his nose, a slight laceration above

his left eyebrow, and a very slight laceration at the right corner of his mouth. Thus,

the remaining issue for this court to decide is, “Did Sergeant Hodge maliciously and

sadistically hit Mr. Forester while Mr. Forester was constrained on the floor?” If the

answer to that question is “yes,” then the court must decide whether Mr. Forester has

shown that his injuries were caused by those blows and whether Officer Guthery or

Officer Dixon failed to intervene to prevent such action by Sergeant Hodge.

10

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 10 of 12
The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is

triggered when a prisoner is subjected to an “unnecessary and wanton infliction of

pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). An excessive force claimrequires

a two-prong showing: (1) an objective showing of deprivation or injury that is

“sufficiently serious” to constitute a denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life's

necessities”; and, (2) a subjective showing that the official had a “sufficiently

culpable state of mind.” Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1305 (11th Cir.2010)

(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (other citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has held that “whenever prison officials stand accused of

using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments

Clause, the core judicial inquiry [in determining whether a prisoner has suffered

unnecessary and wanton pain] is that set out in Whitley, whether force was applied

in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically

to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992).

The factorsto be examined in determining whether the use of force was wanton

and unnecessary include an evaluation of: 1) the need for the application of the force,

2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, 3) the threat

reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, 4) any efforts made to temper the

severity of the response, and 5) the extent of the injury suffered by the inmate.

11

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 11 of 12
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 7.

The court finds that the force used by Sergeant Hodge, a mandibular pressure

point hold, to subdue Mr. Forester after the takedown was not excessive under the

circumstances. Application of the hold was needed, as Mr. Forester continued to

struggle. The hold stopped once Mr. Forester stopped struggling. The hold did not

cause any injuries to Mr. Forester.

IV. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

plaintiff James Allen Forester hasfailed to show that defendant Bruce T. Hodge used

excessive force against him and hasfailed to show thatJustin Guthery or Christopher

Dixon failed to intervene (because no intervention was needed). Accordingly,

JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Bruce T. Hodge, Justin Guthery, and

Christopher Dixon. Mr. Forester shall take nothing and his claim is hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE this the 5th day of August, 2015.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

12

Case 4:12-cv-04094-VEH-JEO Document 79 Filed 08/05/15 Page 12 of 12