Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00239/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00239-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JASON GLEN MCKINLEY,

ADC #139327 PLAINTIFF

5:07CV00239HLJ

DAVID HOOKS, et al. DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A trial was held in this case before the Court on February 22, 2010. Following a

presentation of the testimony of the parties and witnesses, and submission of exhibits, the Court

enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

I. Facts

Plaintiff is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Randall E. Williams Detention

Center of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against defendants, alleging constitutional claims of excessive force and failure to protect

as a result of an incident that occurred in November, 2006, while he was incarcerated at the

Sheridan Detention Center, Sheridan, Arkansas. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant

Wilkerson unreasonably used excessive force against him by administering a taser to him on two

occasions, and that defendants Wicker and Cole failed to protect him from harm. Plaintiff asks for

monetary relief from the defendants.

A. Plaintiff’s Testimony

According to the testimony of the plaintiff, on November12, 2006, he was arrested and

transported to the Sheridan Detention Center, where he was placed in a cell labeled “H1". While

in the cell, he tried to communicate with Krystal Mitchell, his girlfriend, who was arrested at the

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 7
2

same time and was sitting on a bench outside his cell waiting to be “booked in” to the Jail. Plaintiff

assumed they would both be required to post a bond, and attempted to communicate with her

concerning the preparations they would need to make. Ms. Mitchell stopped talking with him when

officers asked them to stop talking, but plaintiff stated he continued to try and communicate with

her. Defendants Wilkerson and Wickers came to his cell and told him they were moving him to

another cell. In anticipation of this, plaintiff stated he removed all his clothing, except his

underwear, since he was familiar with the procedures involved with being “booked” into the Jail.

Plaintiff stated he offered no physical resistance while being removed from the H1 cell, and he

walked down the hall with his clothes in his hands. Defendant Wickers opened the door to the

visitation cell, where plaintiff was being placed, and defendant Wilkerson grabbed plaintiff by the

arm and started shoving him toward the room. Plaintiff stated he told them not to put their hands

on him and he turned around to repeat it to Wilkerson when Wilkerson tased him in the side. As

a reflex action, plaintiff stated he grabbed Wilkerson in order to get the taser off of him, and he

grabbed Wilkerson’s tie. Plaintiff started to fall, taking Wilkerson with him, and Wilkerson tased

plaintiff in the neck. According to plaintiff, this caused him to convulse and hit the door jamb

sticking out from the wall, gashing the top of his head. An ambulance was called, and plaintiff was

transported to the Malvern Medical Center, where eleven staples were used to close the gash in his

head. A CT scan was also conducted, which revealed no brain damage. He was then returned to

the Jail.

Plaintiff later was transported to the Paulk Family Clinic, where the staples were removed

and he was treated for migraine headaches and seizures. See Plaintiff’s Ex. 14. Plaintiff stated

at trial he was not aware he had suffered a seizure until he read the police report in preparation for

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 7
3

his criminal trial. He stated he did not remember his first seizure, and he simply lost consciousness.

He testified that, since the incident, he has suffered five to six seizures, and he suffers from periodic

headaches, which are well managed by medication. Plaintiff admitted being verbally resistant to

the defendants at the time they were escorting him to the second cell, but he denied taking a swing

at defendant Wilkerson. Plaintiff admitted making threatening statements against the defendants

in the ambulance on his way to the Medical Center.

B. Defendants’ Testimony

Defendant Cole, who was the supervising officer at the time of the incident, stated he

participated in plaintiff’s arrest, and smelled alcohol on plaintiff’s breath at the time. He witnessed

the incident involving defendants Wilkerson and Wickers. He stated that while plaintiff was in the

first cell, he continued to yell at his girlfriend, causing disruption within the Jail. When defendants

escorted him out of the cell, plaintiff stiffened up and continued to “holler and cuss.” Defendant

Cole stated that when they reached the doorway of the visitation cell, plaintiff spun around at the

officers with one fist balled up, and then the officer tased him. Defendant also stated plaintiff

grabbed Wilkerson’s shirt and tie and Wilkerson tased him a second time in the neck. As plaintiff

fell, he hit his head on the locking mechanism that jutted out from the door frame. Cole testified

he went to get towels for plaintiff and when he returned, plaintiff was yelling, screaming, cussing,

and threatening the officers, and he was beating his head against the windows that separated the cell

from the hallway. 

 Cole also testified concerning the types of tasing that can occur: the drive stun, which is

used to get someone off of you and involves placing the gun directly on the skin; and the release of

probes, which attach to the skin and completely disable the victim. Cole stated that although the

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 7
4

police department policy requires an officer to announce he is using the taser, such is more for the

safety of the surrounding officers, and it did not occur in this situation. See Plaintiff’s Ex. 3B, which

provides, “When an officer deploys the TASER and immediately prior to using the TASER, the

TASER officer should notify any and all other officers on the scene that he is going to utilize the

TASER by announcing ‘TASER.’” Cole added that this provision of the policy does not

distinguish between the types of taser uses. Finally, he stated plaintiff did not cause any more

difficulty at the Jail after he returned from the Medical Center.

Defendant Wilkerson is a police officer with the Sheridan Police Department, and he was

the officer who tased plaintiff. He testified that, while in the first cell, plaintiff screamed and yelled

profanities through the door, and he beat and kicked on the door. After officers asked plaintiff to

stop, he became louder, and the officers arranged to move him down the hall away from the booking

and control room areas. When Wilkerson and Wickers appeared at plaintiff’s cell to move him,

plaintiff had removed all his clothes except for his underwear, stood in a fighting stance and told

the officers to come into the cell. The officers refused and plaintiff walked out of the cell and down

the hallway with some resistance. Wilkerson stated defendant Wicker grabbed plaintiff and told

him to move, and when plaintiff withdrew and yelled for them to take their hands off of him,

Wilkerson decided to pull out his taser gun in case it was needed. As the two tried to move plaintiff

into the visitation cell, plaintiff told them not to put their hands on him and grabbed Wilkerson by

the tie and shirt. Wilkerson then tased plaintiff in the side. Wilkerson stated plaintiff then tried to

take a swing at him, and as he attempted to tase plaintiff a second time, he tried to tase plaintiff in

the shoulder, but missed and hit him in the neck instead. At that point, Wilkerson stated, plaintiff

fell and pulled him down with him. Plaintiff hit his head on the door frame as he fell. When

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 4 of 7
5

Wilkerson noticed plaintiff was bleeding, he yelled for someone to call the ambulance. Plaintiff

then began to cuss and yell threats at the officers. He threw the towels down, dug his fingers into

his wound and pulled it open, spit blood on the walls and head-butted the walls. Wilkerson stated

it took the emergency medical technicians (EMTs) twenty to twenty-five minutes to get plaintiff to

cooperate enough to get him on the gurney. 

Officer Wilkerson stated he felt that the use of the drive stun taser on plaintiff was in

accordance with his training, because he was concerned for his own physical safety when plaintiff

grabbed his shirt and tie. Defendant stated drive stun does not incapacitate the subject and results

in localized pain, and that he used the taser to “get plaintiff off of” him. 

Defendant Wicker, a patrolman with the Sheridan Police Department testified similarly

concerning the incident. He stated plaintiff was verbally abusive and argumentative, and he

resisted while in the first cell and walking to the second cell. Wicker stated Wilkerson deployed

his taser after plaintiff grabbed him by his shirt collar, and then hit his head as he fell. He also

stated he agreed with defendant Wilkerson’s actions and that they were within the guidelines of the

use of force policy. 

Randall and Camron Jewett, who were also working at the Jail at the time, testified

concerning plaintiff’s verbal disruptions and resistance to the officers. Both stated plaintiff grabbed

Wilkerson’s shirt and tie, and the scuffle ensued. Both also testified concerning plaintiff’s conduct

following the incident in which he rubbed his wound, hit the walls and windows, and continued to

yell and make threats. 

Virgil Snyder was the EMT who responded to the defendants’ call for an ambulance, and

testified he found plaintiff fully conscious, lying on the floor of the cell. When plaintiff moved

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 5 of 7
1

In Jones v. Shields, the plaintiff alleging excessive force was a convicted inmate. In analyzing his claims

under the objective reasonableness standard, the Court looked to a variety of factors, including “the need for

the application of physical force, the relationship between the need for physical force and the amount of

force applied, and the extent of injury suffered by the inmate,” Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491, 495 (8th Cir.

2000). In addition, while “not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of

action, ... some actual injury must be shown,” and the extent of pain inflicted is considered. Id. 

6

toward the door of the cell in response to Snyder’s request, he became agitated and started yelling

and screaming. Snyder stated he tried to calm plaintiff, but plaintiff continued to pull and tear at

his injuries and pulled off bandages once they were placed on his scalp. Snyder testified it took him

approximately twenty minutes to get plaintiff calm, treated, and transported on the gurney to the

ambulance, but that as soon as plaintiff saw the defendants standing outside of the ambulance, he

again became agitated. During the ride to the Medical Center, plaintiff also made threats to

defendants and told Snyder to expect to be involved with a gunshot incident involving plaintiff and

the officers, because he knew where they lived.

II. Law

At the time of the incident, plaintiff was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee. In situations

involving allegations of excessive force on pretrial detainees, the Courts have applied the Fourth

Amendment standard of “objective reasonableness.” Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 715 (8th Cir.

2000), and Moore v. Novak, 146 F.3d 531 (8th Cir. 1998). The “reasonableness” of a use of force

“must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20

vision of hindsight.” Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). Furthermore, “the calculus of

reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make

split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the

amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id . At 396-97. 1

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 6 of 7
7

In addition, to prove an Eighth Amendment claim of failure to protect, plaintiff must show

defendants Cole and Wicker were aware of facts from which an inference could be drawn that a

substantial risk of serious harm existed, and that the defendants drew that inference. Perkins v.

Grimes, 161 F.3d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 1999), citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

III. Liability

In this particular case, the Court finds defendant Wilkerson’s actions to have been

objectively reasonable, given plaintiff’s behavior and the need to make a split-second judgment in

a situation that was tense, uncertain and rapidly-evolving. The Court further finds plaintiff has not

met his burden of proof in establishing, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the actions of

Wicker and Cole were unreasonable, or that they failed to act while aware of a substantial risk of

serious harm to the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not dispute the defendants’ characterization of his

behavior prior to the tasing incidents. Given the consistency of the defendants’ testimony and the

other witness’s testimony about the incident, together with the consistency of the evidence

concerning plaintiff’s actions prior to the incident, I must give their testimony credibility..

Accordingly, 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s allegations against defendants are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2010.

_____________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00239-HLJ Document 120 Filed 03/04/10 Page 7 of 7