Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02235/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02235-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2235

___________

Juquan Demetrius Muhammad, * 

aka Willie Murry, * 

* 

Appellant, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Ricky McCarrell, Sgt., Varner * 

Super Max, ADC; James Murry, Lt., * 

Varner Super Max, ADC; * 

John Doe, Dr., Southwest Hospital; * 

Jimmy Via, Captain, Varner Super * 

Max, ADC; Ransom Evans, Lt., * 

Varner Super Max, ADC (originally * 

sued as Raven Evans); Joann * 

Burnett, LPN, Varner Super Max, * 

ADC (Originally sued as Pam Burnett), *

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 9, 2008

Filed: August 7, 2008(Corrected: 8/08/2008)

___________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Juquan Demetrius Muhammad, an inmate at the Varner Supermax Unit

("Varner"), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Varner and several of its

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

2

A few weeks before this incident, Muhammad attacked another officer with a

handmade weapon. Lieutenant Evans had to help subdue Muhammad in the earlier

incident. Additionally, in the nine months prior to this incident, Muhammad had been

found guilty of committing 16 major disciplinary violations.

-2-

officers, asserting a tort claim for battery and alleging that his Eighth Amendment

rights were violated when officers used excessive force to extract him from his cell.

The jury returned a defendants' verdict. Muhammad appeals, arguing that the district

court1

 committed plain error (1) by not overturning the jury verdict in favor of the

defendants with regard to his Eighth Amendment and battery claims, and (2) in

allowing the defense to make certain statements during closing argument. We affirm.

I. Background

On March 8, 2002, Muhammad was unruly and caused a disturbance in his cell

block. Muhammad taunted an officer, Tina Buchannon, calling her names in an

apparent attempt to get out of his cell. Officer Buchannon reported the incident to

Sergeant Ricky McCarrell, the supervisor of Muhammad's cell block. Sergeant

McCarrell, in turn, passed the report along to Lieutenant Ransom Evans, his superior

officer.

Lieutenant Evans attempted to handcuff Muhammad before seeking to remove

him from his cell, but Muhammad refused to cooperate. Muhammad stated his intent

to continue causing a disturbance "all day." Lieutenant Evans warned Muhammad that

the guards may use force should he fail to cooperate. Not heeding the warnings,

Muhammad persisted in noncompliance. Concerned Muhammad had a weapon,2

Lieutenant Evans testified at trial that he wanted to place Muhammad in handcuffs.

Lieutenant Evans ordered Muhammad several more times to submit, to no avail, so

he sprayed two bursts of pepper spray toward Muhammad's face. Lieutenant Evans

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
3

The grenade is similar to a military style grenade, except it contains small

rubber balls that are surrounded by oleoresin capiscum gas. The grenade usually

inflicts only bruises and is used primarily for riot control. 

4

The tear gas is packed into a projectile and shot using a handgun-type weapon.

On contact, the projectile explodes, allowing the gas to fill the air, causing skin

irritation and breathing difficulties. 

-3-

alleged at trial that the spray had no discernible effect on Muhammad, so Evans left

the cell block and returned with his superior, Captain Jimmy Via and others.

Because the officers knew that they would have to use force beyond pepper

spray, one of the officers who came to the scene brought a video camera to document

the incident. By this time, Muhammad had used his mattress to barricade his cell door.

Because Muhammad continued to disobey orders, Lieutenant Evans dispensed a No.

15 OC Stinger grenade3

 into Muhammad's cell between the cell door and the mattress.

Most of the gas from the grenade escaped the cell without affecting Muhammad.

After the Stinger grenade failed to achieve Muhammad's compliance, officers

tried tear gas, but it also failed.4

 After the tear gas failed to subdue Muhammad,

Captain Via warned Muhammad that the officers would use a barricade round if he

did not submit to the restraints. When Muhammad continued to resist, the officers shot

a 37MM Ferret OC powder round—a round that is designed to break through a

barricade—at the cell wall, not at Muhammad. He still refused to comply. Then,

officers dispensed a 28b Stinger 37MM 60 Cal. rubber-ball round into the cell—this

attempt to subdue Muhammad also failed. 

Officer James Murry shot another Ferret OC powder round into Muhammad's

cell. This round went through the mattress and hit Muhammad in the groin area,

finally subduing him. Murry testified that he was not aiming at Muhammad. When

asked by Muhammad's counsel whether he told the warden that he planned to shoot

the round through the mattress at Muhammad, Murry answered affirmatively. He

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
-4-

immediately clarified his answer to explain that he told the warden that he planned to

shoot the round through the mattress. 

According to Lieutenant Evans, initially, no weapon was found in Muhammad's

cell; however, Muhammad later admitted that a weapon was in his pocket. Officers

searched him and seized the weapon. Muhammad was found guilty of eight

disciplinary violations for his actions during this incident. 

The powder-round wound to Muhammad's leg required outpatient surgical

treatment. After surgery, Muhammad was transported back to the Department of

Corrections Infirmary.

Muhammad sued Varner and several of the officers at the facility—Sergeant

McCarrell, Lieutenant Evans, Officer Murry, and Captain Via. Officer McCarrell was

dismissed from the case, and the case proceeded to trial as to the remaining

defendants. 

During closing argument, the defense attorney stated the following: 

It sounds pretty silly for me to stand here after you've listened to two

days full of testimony to say this case is really simple, it comes down to

the point of all he had to do was follow a direct order. But in all honesty,

that's all it comes down to. All Mr. Muhammad had to do was follow a

direct order.

And later in his argument, defense counsel stated that "[Muhammad] made no effort

to comply with any direct orders whatsoever and even at the end, didn't comply with

the direct order because that is what he chose to do."

Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for the defense. Muhammad appeals the

jury's verdict.

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
-5-

II. Discussion

On appeal, Muhammad challenges the verdict, arguing that (1) the evidence was

insufficient to support a verdict for the defendants, and (2) the defense attorney's

comments during closing arguments unfairly prejudiced the jury. Muhammad did not

file any post-trial motions; therefore, we review his arguments for plain error. United

States v. Quintanilla, 25 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 1994).

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Muhammad argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury

verdict and that the jury found for the defendants only because they disregarded the

law. We disagree.

To prevail on his § 1983 action, Muhammad had to prove that officers used

excessive force—i.e. force was used "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose

of causing harm." Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2008). And under

Arkansas law, "[b]attery is a wrongful or offensive physical contact with another

through the intentional contact by the tortfeasor and without the consent of the victim,

the unpermitted application of trauma by one person upon the body of another

person." Costner v. Adams, 121 S.W.3d 164, 170 (Ark. App. 2003). The officers' use

of force in extracting Muhammad from his cell was the underlying factual predicate

for both claims, and in their defense, the officers asserted that force was only used to

secure Muhammad's compliance with their reasonable commands and to restore order

to the cell block.

Muhammad does not challenge the accuracy of the jury instructions; he merely

contends that the only way for the jury to have found against him was for it to have

disregarded the court's instructions. There is no evidence in the record of such

misconduct, and unless given a reason for doubt, we must presume that the jury

followed the instructions as given. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796,

798 (1986) (stating that "the theory under which jury instructions are given by trial

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
-6-

courts and reviewed on appeal is that juries act in accordance with the instructions

given them . . ."); see also Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S

474, 485 (1933) ("Appellate courts should be slow to impute to juries a disregard of

their duties, and to trial courts a want of diligence or perspicacity in appraising the

jury's conduct"). 

Moreover, Muhammad's appeal is, in essence, an attack on the jury's credibility

determinations. Muhammad asks us to make a factual inference contrary to the jury's

findings regarding the officers' motives. Such an inference would contravene our

standard of review, and we thus decline. See Schooley v. Orkin Extermination, Co.,

Inc., 502 F.3d 759, 766 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating that in challenges to the sufficiency

of the evidence, "we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict

. . . "). We will not reverse the jury's verdict on these grounds. "It is well settled that

a district court's assessment of a witness's credibility is a judgment call and 'virtually

unassailable on appeal.'" United States v. King, 518 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir. 2008)

(quoting United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2005)). 

B. Defense Attorney's Closing Argument

Muhammad also argues that opposing counsel misstated the law during closing

arguments and that the comments so severely damaged Muhammad's ability to receive

a fair trial that it constituted plain error for the district court to have allowed the

statements. Specifically, Muhammad contends that the attorney asserted that

Muhammad had not proven an Eighth Amendment violation in this case because

Muhammad's conduct essentially asked for excessive force. The appellees assert that

defense counsel merely made the point that Muhammad's continued resistance caused

the force escalation, not that Muhammad asked for excessive force. 

We conclude that allowing the attorney's comments did not amount to plain

error on the part of the district court. Even assuming counsel's comments were

objectionable, Muhammad has not shown plain error. To secure a reversal under the

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661
-7-

plain error standard, Muhammad must show that defense counsel's comments caused

an error constituting a "manifest miscarriage of justice." Southern Pine Helicopters,

Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Managers, Inc., 320 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2003). If the

plaintiff's attorney is given an opportunity to rebut an erroneous argument, this may

explain away any prejudicial effect. See Rogers v. Rulo, 712 F.2d 363, 367 n.3 (8th

Cir. 1983) (recognizing that a lawyer's comments during closing argument may

"explain[] away the alleged prejudicial effect" of the opposing parties' closing

argument comments). Here, Muhammad's attorney had an opportunity to address the

comments by the defense attorney and to explain that it is no defense to an Eighth

Amendment claim that a defendant was acting unruly. Therefore, even if we agreed

that the comments were improper, as characterized by Muhammad, there was no plain

error here because Muhammad's attorney had an adequate opportunity to address the

jury about any potential prejudicial effect.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2235 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/08/2008 Entry ID: 3459661