Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05037/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05037-5/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BOBBY WAYNE SAVAGE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5037

OFFICER SCOTT TURNER DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 17th day of May, 2007, comes on for consideration

the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge

("R&R")(document #62), and plaintiff's Objections thereto

(document #66). 

1. In this suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983,

plaintiff Bobby Wayne Savage ("Savage") contends that an employee

of the Benton County Sheriff's Department, defendant Scott Turner

("Turner"), used excessive force on him in an incident that took

place at the Benton County Detention Center ("BCDC") on July 1,

2004.

2. The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Beverly

Stites Jones for a report and recommendation to this Court. The

Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing, upon which the

R&R is based, and recommended that judgment be entered in favor of

Turner on Savage's claim. This recommendation was based on her

finding that Savage refused to obey Turner's orders, argued with

Turner, and interfered with Turner's ability to concentrate and

control other inmates. She found that Savage's behavior "was a

threat to the safety and security of the facility," and that

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
At the time, Savage was an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Corrections 1

("ADC") on a parole violation, but had been transported to the Benton County Detention

Center ("BCDC") for a court appearance on another matter.

-2-

"Turner justifiably believed Savage needed to be controlled and

removed from the intake area."

The Magistrate Judge also found that the amount of force used

was not excessive because Savage "had no marks, lacerations, or

other visible injuries," his previous shoulder dislocation could

have "predisposed him to injury," and the injury to his right

shoulder "could have occurred in any number of ways including

being caused by Savage's own conduct either before or after the

use of force by Turner."

3. Savage timely filed a lengthy and somewhat rambling

document encompassing a variety of objections to the R&R and the

Court will address those objections in due course.

Because Savage's objections call into question certain

aspects of the testimony taken before the Magistrate Judge, the

Court has reviewed the audio tapes of the hearing and, based upon

that review, finds the evidence relevant to Savage’s complaint to

be as follows:

* On July 1, 2004, Savage was one of a group of inmates

(testimony places the number in the group at between 7

and 10) in the intake area of the Benton County

Detention Center ("BCDC") . The group was returning 1

from state court. They had been brought in to the

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
The other deputy is not clearly identified in the testimony, but is alleged to be 2

Officer Conners in Savage's Complaint.

It is against BCDC regulations for inmates to lean against the wall. 3

-3-

intake area of the BCDC wearing handcuffs and shackles,

and were being guarded and unshackled/unhandcuffed by

two deputies -- one of whom was defendant Turner .

2

* Savage was wearing a red and white striped jail uniform

-- which indicates that an inmate presents a risk of

flight or violence -- because the day before he had been

in an altercation with a guard. He had spit at the

guard in that incident.

* Savage was angry at Turner because of something that had

allegedly occurred during his court appearance. Turner

considered Savage to be hot-tempered and a threat, based

on his history.

* A confrontation occurred between Savage and Turner

during the process of having shackles and handcuffs

removed from the prisoners who had just been transported

-- at a point after Savage had been released from his

handcuffs and shackles. All the witnesses testified to

roughly the same scenario: the two men argued about

whether Savage had been leaning against the wall , the 3

verbal exchange escalated, eventually Turner told Savage

to "shut the fuck up," whereupon Savage replied "fuck

you." Turner then physically took Savage down to the

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

floor, picked him back up, and took him to a cell. 

* While the witnesses agree on these general contours of

the situation, they differ with respect to what might

have motivated Turner to take Savage down:

^ Savage's Version: Savage testified that when the

verbal exchange reached the point of cursing, Turner

jerked him out of line, slammed him against the wall,

and slammed him to the floor, knocking his glasses off.

When Savage started saying that he was being subjected

to police brutality, Major Drake told Turner to let

Savage up. While it is not clear from Savage's

testimony how he got off the floor, it appears from the

Complaint that he stood up on his own. Then, thinking

Turner was going to handcuff him, he put his hands

behind his back. Turner took his wrists and pushed his

arms up behind his back. When he complained about

Turner "breaking his arms," Turner pushed his arms up

higher, and Savage felt sharp pain in his right

shoulder. According to Savage, there was no provocation

for the take-down except for his words.

^ Turner's Version: Turner testified that he was

removing shackles and handcuffs from the several

prisoners, and that Savage was the first to be released.

At some point, he heard Major Drake (the operations

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
Turner was not positive it was Drake who said this, but was positive that someone 4

in authority said it.

-5-

commander, who was in the booking area and could see the

intake area through a window) say something to Savage.

He looked at Savage and saw him leaning on the wall.

Turner told Savage to get off the wall, and to "move

away." Savage moved away from the wall and away from

the other inmates, by 3-4 feet. Drake then came into

the intake area, and told Savage to get off the wall.

Drake went back into the booking area, and Savage

started arguing with Turner, saying that he was not on

the wall. Turner eventually told Savage to "shut the

fuck up," and Savage responded in kind. Savage clenched

his fists and took a small step back "in a defensive

manner," and, because of the incident the previous day,

Turner was cautious. He took Savage by the shoulders

and pushed him away, turned him, and took him to the

floor. Savage did not resist. He was being cooperative

at that point. Then Drake told Turner to get Savage 4

"out of there." Turner grabbed Savage by his wrists or

hands with one hand, and put the other under Savage's

left armpit, and "with all that adrenaline, I just

picked him up" and took him to a cell. Turner admitted

that Savage had the right to respond to his use of

cursewords with cursewords of his own, and that he --

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

Turner -- overreacted to the situation. He said he was

tired of dealing with Savage, with his loud and abusive

language, his verbal defensiveness, his "going off on

his constitutional rights and his freedom of speech."

He admitted that he was angry, that he "had had enough

of" Savage, and that he just wanted to "make him be

quiet." He said "I just wanted to get him away from me"

because of his "mouth." Turner admitted that what he

should have done -- if he had followed strict protocol

-- was just tell Savage to turn around and face the wall

and be quiet. Although Turner testified that "a riot

could have happened," he also testified that there were

only "maybe 3-4 inmates unshackled" when the incident

occurred, and that in addition to himself and the other

transport deputy in the intake area, Drake, Captain

Hunter Petray (the jail administrator), and the Sheriff

were in the immediately adjacent booking area. 

^ Drake's Version: Major Gene Drake, operations

commander, testified that he was in the booking area,

which had windows into the intake area, when he noticed

that Turner and another deputy had a group of inmates in

the intake area. He said he saw Savage go into the

restroom, but the deputies did not notice, and that he

went into the intake area and spoke to Savage, telling

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

him not to use the restroom without asking a deputy, and

telling him to stop leaning on the wall. Drake then

asked Turner to get Savage off the wall, because Savage

had not moved off the wall when he, Drake, told him to.

The next thing Drake knew, Turner had Savage down and

was putting handcuffs on him. Drake then left, and

could not recall how Savage got up off the floor. Drake

testified that Savage "usually has his mouth running,"

but admitted that it was not permissible to use force

for that reason alone. His testimony was that force was

used because Savage refused to get off the wall. Drake

testified that he was concerned about the way the

deputies were handling the unshackling process, because

inmates were behind the deputies and the deputies were

outnumbered 5-1, a situation which raised safety

concerns. Drake did not recall seeing any clenched

fists or threatening posture on the part of Savage.

^ Petray's Version: Captain Hunter Petray, jail

administrator, testified that he was in the booking area

when the inmate group returned from court. He said that

he heard Drake tell Savage to quit leaning on the wall,

and that Savage got off the wall when Drake told him to,

but that Savage started arguing, saying he wasn't

leaning on the wall, and stepped out of line, yelling

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
Later in his testimony, Petray waffled on whether Turner handcuffed Savage before 5

picking him up.

-8-

about freedom of speech. He recalled Turner telling

Savage to "shut the 'f' up." He did not recall seeing

Savage with clenched fists. When Savage continued to

talk, Turner walked over, took hold of Savage, "placed

him on the floor," handcuffed him , picked him up, and 5

took him to a holding cell. He testified that according

to jail policy, an officer was not supposed to use force

in response to verbal taunts or cursing from an inmate,

but that in a situation where an inmate was verbally

escalating, there was "the potential for other inmates

to get involved." There were, however, no problems with

other inmates in the group. He testified that he would

have handled the situation the same way Turner did:

take him down, restrain him, escort him, isolate him. 

^ Other Inmates' Versions: Two other inmates in the

transport group testified. Clint Copp testified that he

did not see Savage make a fist, do anything menacing or

threatening, or do anything that would have warranted

Turner in taking Savage down. James Misener testified

that Turner "told Savage the f-word and Savage told it

back to him," and then Turner shoved Savage against the

wall and then down to the floor. Then Officer Flowers

came in, said something about "letting him up," and

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
The articulation between the clavicle (collarbone) and the acromion of the scapula 6

(shoulder blade). Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 28th Ed.

-9-

Savage got up and Turner pulled his arms up behind his

back. He did not see Savage do anything threatening

toward Turner. He recalled that Savage was "just

standing there in line," and it was when Savage used the

f-word that Turner took action.

^ Officer Audrey Flowers testified that she had no

recollection of the incident. She did, however, confirm

that the general rule, when an inmate used vulgarities,

was to ignore it. She also recalled Savage as a

disobedient and rude inmate, who was always "crossing

the red line." She testified, hypothetically, that if

she were in an open area with ten inmates and only one

other deputy, and one of the inmates assumed a fighting

posture with fists clenched, she would tell him to put

his hands behind his back, and if that did not work, she

would put his hands behind his back for him, then secure

him with handcuffs.

* After the incident, Savage asked Officer Flowers to call

the nurse. He was sent to the hospital, where his right

shoulder was x-rayed. The x-rays revealed a "complete

dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint which by 6

history is acute. Ossific or calcific densities project

immediately inferior to the distal clavicle suggesting

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
Savage had previously dislocated his right shoulder. In an ADC health exam dated 7

November 20, 2003, it was noted that he had a history of a "dislocated clavicle," and

that he had difficulty raising his right arm secondary to a "shoulder deformity." He

was restricted to duty using only his left arm. On December 15, 2003, he was diagnosed

with a grade 3 separation of the acromioclavicular joint, and the diagnosing physician

believed this to be potentially a chronic problem.

Used to treat mild to moderate pain. Physician's Desk Reference, 1995 Ed. 8

Also used to treat mild to moderate pain. Physician's Desk Reference, 1995 Ed. 9

Used to treat mild to moderately severe pain. Physician's Desk Reference, 1995 10

Ed.

-10-

that there has been an old injury as well." The 7

physician diagnosed a grade 3 separation of the

acromioclavicular joint. Savage's right shoulder was

placed in a shoulder immobilizer and he was prescribed

twenty Darvocet plus a seven-day course of three 8

Ibuprofen 800mg daily. 9

* On July 6, 2004, Dr. Neil Mullins saw Savage. Dr.

Mullins continued Savage's prescription for Darvocet, up

to three a day, for pain. Dr. Mullins also noted that

he would contact ADC to determine "if they want us to

follow up here by sending him to an orthopedic

specialist or wait until he gets back to prison as he is

only up here to testify in trial."

* Savage was returned to ADC, where he was seen on July 9,

2004, by Dr. Patricia Kelly, who noted that Savage's

"shoulder is drooped and when he moves it the least

ther[e] is an obvious sepreation [sic]." Dr. Kelly

prescribed a five-day course of Tylenol with codeine ,

10

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-11-

six tablets daily, and arranged for Savage to see an

orthopedic specialist, Dr. John Lytle. 

* Savage saw Dr. Lytle on July 21, 2004. Dr. Lytle noted

a grade 3 acromioclavicular separation, which was "very

mobile," and that Savage could "reduce" it or "flex his

arm and shoulder" and cause it "to be displaced again

severely." Dr. Lytle noted that Savage "most likely

will require surgical intervention," but thought it best

to "allow it a chance for it to try and heal itself and

become non-tender and review it's function." He

continued use of the immobilizer and twice daily

Ibuprofen for three weeks, and directed that Savage

return in four weeks.

* A note from Connie Hubbard, a nurse at ADC, indicated

that Savage was to have "[n]o duty requiring use of

right hand or arm from 8-5-04 thorugh [sic] 12-5-04."

However, he had been under a similar restriction before

the incident with Turner.

* Savage again saw Dr. Lytle on September 1, 2004, at

which time it appears that Savage had not responded well

to the conservative treatment regimen. In addition,

Savage was complaining of pain in his left shoulder,

saying "it feels like it is coming out." Dr. Lytle

found "no clinical evidence of significant AC separation

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
Internal citations and quotation marks have been deleted from the quotations to 11

Treats.

-12-

or abnormality" of the left shoulder. He recommended

surgical repair of the right shoulder, noting that

Savage "will never have complete pain relief but he

should have much better function and ability to tolerate

the use of his shoulder."

* Savage has not had corrective surgery to his shoulder.

4. Because Savage had already been convicted at the time of

the conduct in question, his excessive force claim is analyzed

under the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312

(1986). The applicable law is set forth in Treats v. Morgan, 308

F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2002) :

11

* The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from "the

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain by correctional officers

regardless of whether an inmate suffers serious injury as a

result." 

* "Officers are permitted to use force reasonably in a

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but force is

not to be used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." 

* "Factors to be considered in deciding whether a

particular use of force was reasonable are whether there was an

objective need for force, the relationship between any such need

and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-13-

the correctional officers, any efforts by the officers to temper

the severity of their forceful response, and the extent of the

inmate's injury."

5. As previously noted, Savage submitted a variety of

objections to the R&R which the Court has grouped for convenience

into the categories addressed below. 

6. Savage objects that the BCDC witnesses are not credible.

He points out that there are inconsistencies between their various

accounts of the incident; that they have what he perceives as a

motivation to lie ("they are all prejudice [sic] against me trying

to protect there [sic] job and to help Officer Turner"); that

Turner did not like him; and that the witnesses had been "prepped"

by their lawyer before the hearing whereas he had no lawyer to

represent him.

The Court finds no merit in these objections. Witness

preparation, motivation, and attitude exist in every case, and are

taken into consideration by the trier of fact in evaluating

credibility. They are simply a fact of litigation.

7. Savage objects that the fact of his injury is -- in and

of itself -- evidence of unreasonable force. He states that his

shoulder had never separated until the incident, and that he could

not have done this to himself. This argument is clearly lacking

in merit, given the medical history of a grade 3 separation of

Savage's right shoulder in December, 2003.

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-14-

8. Savage objects to the Magistrate Judge's refusal to

subpoena two witnesses who allegedly could have testified to

events that occurred between himself and Turner while they were in

court earlier on the day of the incident. These events, Savage

maintains, would show a basis for Turner's anger at Savage, and

would have impugned Turner's credibility.

This argument is without merit. Turner admitted that he was

angry at Savage, that he failed to follow policy, and that he

overreacted. Savage fails to show how the missing witnesses would

have added anything to this picture.

9. Savage contends that the Magistrate Judge "lied" and

"clearly trys [sic] to hender [sic] me and favors the defendants

due to these prejudices." There is absolutely no evidence to

support this contention, and the Court rejects it out of hand.

Magistrate Judge Beverly Stites Jones (now retired) served the

federal judiciary honorably for many years, and the Court has

reviewed hundreds of reports and recommendations she prepared.

While the Court has not always adopted those reports and

recommendations in toto, it has never perceived any favoritism or

prejudice in any of them -- nor does it perceive such in this

case. Magistrate Judge Jones directed the questioning of the

witnesses on Savage's behalf so as to draw out facts relevant to

his claim; allowed Savage to supplement her questioning; and

developed the documentary record. All of this allowed Savage,

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-15-

acting pro se, to present a clear evidentiary picture of the facts

relevant to his claim.

10. Savage objects to the Court's ruling denying him a

transcript of the hearing in this matter, saying that he cannot

"remember all aspects of the hearing." This objection is without

merit, given that the Court has reviewed the tape recordings of

the hearing for evidence bearing on all the issues before it, both

that favorable to Savage and that favorable to Turner.

11. Savage objects that the force used against him was

unreasonable because it is not the policy of BCDC to use physical

force of any kind to respond to verbal taunts. This objection

calls for an analysis of the factors identified in Treats, as

follows:

(a) Was there an objective need for force?

In light of the BCDC policy not to use physical force to

respond to verbal taunts, in order to demonstrate "objective need"

for the force used against Savage there must be shown some

evidence of conduct or action by Savage other than the words he

used.

Turner testified that Savage clenched his fists and took a

defensive posture -- but neither the other officers in the

immediate area nor the inmates observed this. It is interesting

to note Turner’s characterization of Savage’s posture as being

“defensive” -- as opposed to, for example, “aggressive” or

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-16-

“threatening.” Beyond that, however, Turner was unequivocal in

his testimony that he took the actions he took because he wanted

Savage to be quiet. 

Turner also testified that "a riot could have happened."

Based upon its review of the record, the Court is not persuaded

there is any basis to support such an opinion on the circumstances

shown. There is no evidence to suggest that the other prisoners

present were sympathetic to or supportive of Savage in his

confrontation with Turner and it appears that only three of four

of them were out of handcuffs and shackles at the time. Moreover,

in addition to Turner and the other transport deputy who were

present in the intake area, Drake, Petray and the Sheriff were in

the immediately adjacent booking area. In addition, according to

Savage, the injury occurred when Turner lifted Savage's arms up

high behind his back -- after he was up off the floor and at a

point where Turner conceded that Savage was being cooperative.

Drake testified that force was used because Savage refused to

get off the wall when told to do so -- but both Petray and Turner

testified that Savage did move away from the wall when told to do

so. Drake also testified that the deputies were outnumbered five

to one thus amounting to a situation which raised safety concerns.

Such concerns cannot, of course, be wholly discounted but, given

that most of the inmates were handcuffed and shackled; that

nothing more than talk between Savage and Turner had occurred

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-17-

before the “takedown”; and that senior jail officials could and

did observe the situation from close at hand, these concerns would

not, in the Court’s view, reasonably support a “takedown” not

otherwise appropriate. This same observation is applicable to the

testimony of Petray that there was "the potential for other

inmates to get involved."

In sum, the Court concludes that the evidence shown does not

support a finding of objective need for the use of force. "The

law recognizes that order and discipline are important in running

a correctional institution, but that does not . . . justify

punitive use of force on difficult inmates not posing a real

threat to other persons or raising security concerns." Treats,

308 F.3d at 872. 

(b) What was the relationship between any such need and the

amount of force used?

To the extent that Turner perceived a need to remove Savage

from the company of the other inmates, there is no indication that

he could not have done so by simply taking Savage to a cell,

without first "taking him down." Even if Turner had felt a need

to handcuff Savage, there is no indication of any reason to take

Savage to the floor before doing so. Thus, to the extent that

Turner may have subjectively perceived a need to take some action

against Savage, the action he took involved more force than was

reasonably necessary.

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-18-

(c) Was there a threat reasonably perceived by the

correctional officers?

As noted above, in connection with subparagraph (a), the

Court does not believe that the possible "threat" suggested by

Turner, Drake, and Petray was, in fact, a real one which was

reasonably perceived -- given that most of the prisoners in the

transport group were in handcuffs and shackles; the group was

inside the jail walls; there were at least three other officers in

an immediately adjacent area; and the conduct allegedly creating

the “threat” was merely verbal taunts. The Court is not unmindful

of the fact that Savage had a history of fighting, and was

identified by his red and white striped uniform as an inmate who

posed a risk of flight or violence. However, under the

circumstances here shown, the Court does not believe that history

-- without more -- would amount to a reasonable justification to

believe he posed a threat to Turner or to others at the time in

question.

(d) What efforts were used by the officers to temper the

severity of their forceful response?

There is no evidence that Turner issued any verbal warning to

Savage about the possible consequences of not being quiet. Turner

admits he overreacted, and that he failed to follow BCDC policy in

handling the incident with Savage. Officer Flowers, testifying

hypothetically, stated that if she and one other deputy were

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 18 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-19-

confronted with ten inmates -- one of whom assumed a fighting

posture with clenched fists -- she would tell that inmate to put

his hands behind his back, and if that did not work, she would put

his hands behind his back for him. It thus appears that there

were no efforts made by Turner to temper the severity of his

forceful response, although there were reasonable means available

to Turner for that purpose.

(e) What was the extent of the inmate's injury? 

Savage's right shoulder was dislocated in the incident. His

medical care providers found that he needed prescription pain

medication, and Dr. Lytle believed that he needed corrective

surgery. He did not expect such surgery to bring about complete

pain relief, but did expect that it would give Savage "much better

function and ability to tolerate the use of his shoulder."

The fact that Savage had a pre-existing shoulder deformity,

and had suffered a dislocation on several occasions, does not

relieve Turner of legal responsibility for Savage’s injuries.

Savage was not taking pain medication for his shoulder when he

arrived at the BCDC, nor was he under a medical recommendation to

have surgical repair of his shoulder. After the incident, both

these situations obtained, leading to the conclusion that Savage

suffered some injury as a result of Turner’s actions, and that it

was more than de minimis. As the Supreme Court has noted, "[w]hen

prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 19 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-20-

harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. This

is true whether or not significant injury is evident." Hudson v.

McMilliam, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). 

When the Court considers all the evidence in light of Treats,

it concludes that Savage is correct in his assertion that physical

force was used against him solely because of his verbal conduct,

and that such force caused injury to his shoulder that was more

than de minimis. Because such use of force was against jail

policy and was not otherwise necessary or appropriate under the

circumstances, it was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment.

12. Having concluded that Savage was subjected to excessive

force, the Court turns to the issue of damages. In his Complaint,

Savage stated "I want to be compensated for my injuries pain and

suffering and all medical bills in the futhure [sic] and punitive

damages."

(a) Compensatory Damages:

While the Court finds that Savage sustained injury to his

shoulder in the incident with Turner, the extent of those injuries

is not entirely clear. Savage had had a dislocated shoulder on at

least two previous occasions, and his medical records indicated a

"shoulder deformity." It is thus clear that he had lived with some

degree of shoulder impairment before the incident. He arrived at

BCDC under an activity restriction to duty using only his left

arm, and went from that status to having the right arm in a sling

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 20 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-21-

for some period of time. The medications he was prescribed are

used to treat mild to moderate pain, indicating that in the

doctor's medical judgment, Savage was experiencing pain, but not

severe pain. While surgery was recommended in September, 2004,

Savage had not had the surgery when evidence was taken in October,

2006. There was no evidence regarding treatment, medication, or

restriction on usage of the right arm beyond December 5, 2004.

When all of the foregoing is considered, the Court concludes

that, while Savage suffered more than a de minimis injury, he was

not severely injured by Turner. The Court further concludes that

an award of $500.00 will fairly and adequately compensate Savage

for his pain and suffering during the five-month period for which

there is evidence of a need for medical attention.

(b) Punitive Damages:

In Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 51 (1983), the Supreme Court

held that "reckless or callous disregard for the plaintiff's

rights, as well as intentional violations of federal law" triggers

"consideration of the appropriateness of punitive damages." The

evidence here shows that Savage was loudly proclaiming his right

to freedom of speech, and that Turner was tired of Savage "going

off on his constitutional rights and his freedom of speech," and

wanted to make Savage be quiet. The evidence also shows that the

BCDC had a written policy against the use of force to respond to

verbal taunts and cursing from an inmate, yet that was precisely

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 21 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
This statute provides that a person lawfully committed to a county jail "shall 12

pay the expenses in carrying him or her to jail and also for his or her support from the

day of his or her initial incarceration for the who time he or she remains there."

-22-

what motivated Turner to use force. 

Given this testimony, the Court concludes that punitive

damages are appropriate in this case. Turner disregarded both

Savage's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment (by taking him down, then hiking his arms up behind him

hard enough to dislocate his shoulder) and his First Amendment

right to free speech, embodied in the BCDC rule. The Court

concludes that a punitive damage award of $1,000.00 is

appropriate.

13. In his Answer to the Complaint, Turner asserted ten

affirmative defenses. Two of these assert offset (i.e., that

"[a]ny amount sought by the Plaintiff should be offset by the

amount owed by the Plaintiff to the County pursuant to A.C.A. §12-

41-505 " and "by virtue of any criminal fines assessed against 12

Plaintiff") and call for the Court to specifically address an

issue which was not addressed in the R&R -- that of the capacity

in which Turner was sued. 

As explained in Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985), a

government official may be sued in either his personal capacity or

his official capacity. "Personal-capacity suits seek to impose

personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes

under color of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast,

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 22 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
-23-

'generally represent only another way of pleading an action

against an entity of which an officer is an agent'." 473 U.S. at

165 (internal citations omitted).

In order to sue a government official in his personal

capacity, the Eighth Circuit has held that "a plaintiff must

expressly and unambiguously state so in the pleadings, otherwise,

it will be assumed that the defendant is sued only in his or her

official capacity." Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d

531 (8th Cir. 1999). The reason for the rule is "that only an

express statement that they are being sued in their individual

capacity will suffice to give proper notice to the defendants."

Id.

A review of the pleadings reflects that Savage did not

"expressly and unambiguously" state that he was suing Turner in

his individual capacity. Notwithstanding that defect, the Court

finds that the general rule does not mandate a finding that the

suit is an official capacity claim. The pleadings of a pro se

litigant are read broadly, and should be "construed to encompass

any allegation stating federal relief." Bracken v. Dormire, 247

F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2001), citing White v. Wyrick, 530 F.2d 818

(8th Cir. 1976). Savage's pleadings can be construed to encompass

an allegation that Turner, in his individual capacity, violated

Savage's Eighth Amendment rights.

 In addition, Turner moved for summary judgment on the issue

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 23 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
See, e.g., Kirk v. Erickson, 989 F.2d 505 (8th Cir. 1993)(unpublished), citing 13

Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697 (2nd Cir. 1988).

-24-

of qualified immunity, a defense available only to an individual

defendant sued in his personal capacity. Kentucky v. Graham,

supra, 473 U.S. at 166-67. It is, thus, clear that Turner was

aware that he faced a claim of liability in his personal capacity.

It is a maxim of the law that when the reasons for a rule no

longer exist, the rule ceases to be applicable. See Zadvydas v.

Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001), citing the maxim "Cesssante

ratione legis cessat ipse lex", i.e., "the rationale of a legal

rule no longer being applicable, that rule itself no longer

applies." Here, Turner was aware that he faced a personal

capacity claim, and the Court finds no impediment to the entry of

judgment against Turner in his personal capacity. It is on that

claim -- rather than an official capacity claim -- that the

Court's award of damages in this case rests.

The foregoing analysis is relevant to Turner's pleaded

defenses of offset, because Turner, in his individual capacity,

has no standing to assert such defenses. Recoupment is the

prerogative of the county, and the Court will leave the matter to

the county to address under its usual procedures.

Turner's other asserted affirmative defenses are also without

merit. Four of these defenses (punitive damages immunity ,

13

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>
See, e.g., Simons v. Marshall, --- Ark. ---, --- S.W.3d ---, 2007 WL 1219739 14

(2007).

Arkansas' three-year statute of limitations applies to §1983 actions filed in 15

Arkansas that allege a physical injury. Williams v. Bradshaw, 459 F.3d 846 (8th Cir.

2006).

-25-

statutory tort immunity , sovereign immunity, and mootness of 14

injunctive relief) are relevant to official capacity claims rather

than personal capacity claims, and therefore afford no protection

from personal liability. Two (justification and failure to state

a claim) are eliminated by the Court's substantive rulings herein.

The statute of limitations defense is inapplicable because the

Complaint was filed on March 7, 2005, less than one year after the

incident . The defense of qualified immunity was rejected by the 15

Court's Order of June 29, 2006, adopting the R&R of the Magistrate

Judge on that issue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge is not adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in this

Order, plaintiff Bobby Wayne Savage's claim is found to have

merit, and he is awarded Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($500.00)

in compensatory damages and $1,000.00 in punitive damages against

defendant Scott Turner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05037-JLH Document 67 Filed 05/17/07 Page 25 of 25 PageID #: <pageID>