Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00852/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00852-1/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:13-cv-00852-SLB-JEO

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on June 10, 2015,

recommending that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the 

plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacities for monetary relief be

granted. (Doc. 24). The magistrate judge further recommended that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment excessive force and failure to protect claims be denied. (Id.). Lastly,

the magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment be denied. (Id.). The parties were allowed fourteen (14) days in which

to file written objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. (Id.). On July

6, 2015, the defendants filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. (Doc. 27). 

FILED

 2015 Aug-25 PM 03:14

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 7
In their objections, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to comply

with the magistrate judge’s order advising him that he may not rely on his

pleadings but must come forward with counter-affidavits and/or documents in

opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 27 at 1-2). 

The defendants contend that the plaintiff, instead, relied solely on the allegations

in his pleadings and the magistrate judge erroneously used such allegations to

determine there was a dispute of material fact.

1

 (Id. at 2).

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly instructed lower courts

to credit “specific facts” pled in a plaintiff’s sworn complaint when considering the

plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment. Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega,

748 F.3d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We also credit the ‘specific facts’ pled in

plaintiff Caldwell’s sworn complaint when considering his opposition to summary

judgment.”) (citing Perry v. Thompson, 786 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1986)

(“Plaintiff alleged specific facts in his sworn complaint and they were required to be

considered in their sworn form.”)); Moulds v. Bullard, 345 F. App’x 387, 391 (11th

Cir. 2009) (“[S]pecific facts pled in a sworn complaint must be considered in

opposition to summary judgment.”) (citing Perry, 786 F.2d at 1095); Shaw v.

1 The plaintiff filed a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in which

he repeated the allegations set forth in his amended complaint. (Doc. 21). However, the response

was not made in affidavit form and was not made under penalty of perjury. (Id.).

2

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 7
Cowart, 300 F. App’x 640, 645 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Facts alleged by the plaintiff in a

sworn pleading” must be considered in opposition to summary judgment)). 

However, sworn statements must be made on personal knowledge, and statements

based in part upon information and belief cannot raise a genuine issue of fact. Pace

v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2002). 

The plaintiff’s amended complaint is signed and dated by him and states that

it is made under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 7 at 4). Therefore, the plaintiff’s

amended complaint complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and thus constitutes an

unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury that may be considered as evidence for

purposes of summary judgment.

2

 Based on the foregoing, it was not error for the

magistrate judge to refer to the plaintiff’s amended complaint when determining that

a dispute of material fact exists for purposes of summary judgment. As such, the

defendants’ objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on such

grounds is OVERRULED.

Next, the defendants argue that the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation “seems to ignore the undisputed fact that Smith admitted that he

did not have any serious illness or injury immediately after his arrest and during his

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, an unsworn declaration may be given the same force

and effect as an affidavit if it is signed and dated and includes language in substantially the following

form: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” 

3

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 7
booking.” (Doc. 27 at 3) (emphasis in original). The magistrate judge correctly

noted that the plaintiff does not dispute that he denied any serious injury at all when

he arrived at the Jefferson County Jail following the alleged assault. (Doc. 24 at

19). The magistrate judge further found no medical evidence in the record to

corroborate the plaintiff’s claims that he sustained “trauma to his kidneys,”

permanent loss of function in his shoulder, bicep, or back muscles, blackouts, or eye

trauma. (Doc. 7 at 5). Nevertheless, the plaintiff submitted pictures and medical

documents which note that he sustained multiple abrasions on his face and arms

following his arrest. (Doc. 14-7 at 2; Doc. 16 at 25). 

The extent of injury suffered is only one factor to determining whether the

force used was unreasonable. See Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1270 (11th Cir.

2014) (applying same rationale to Fourth Amendment excessive force case as used

in actions brought under Eighth Amendment where an individual who is

gratuitously beaten by officers does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force

claim merely because he does not suffer serious injury). Moreover, a plaintiff

claiming excessive force under the Fourth Amendment can seek nominal damages if

he does not have compensable injuries. Id. The defendants’ objections to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the basis that the plaintiff did not

suffer a serious injury is OVERRULED.

4

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 7
A genuine dispute of material fact exists concerning “the need for the

application of force, . . . the relationship between the need and amount of force

used, and . . . the extent of the injury inflicted,” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1198

(11th Cir. 2002), concerning Defendants Leon, Scott, Sanders, and Watts’s alleged

use of force against the plaintiff during his arrest on November 8, 2011. Similarly, a

genuine dispute of material fact exists whether Defendant Hughes used unnecessary

or excessive force against the plaintiff while in the booking area’s holding cell in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3

 Moreover, the defendants are not

3 The plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee when he alleges Defendant Hughes assaulted him. 

Therefore, the magistrate judge correctly analyzed the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment excessive

force claim against Defendant Hughes under the same standard as that used in an Eighth Amendment

excessive force claim based on Eleventh Circuit precedent. See Daniel v. U.S. Marshal Serv., 188

Fed. App’x 954, 961-62 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir.

2005) (citing Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1490 (11th Cir. 1996)). 

On June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, et

al. that a pretrial detainee proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that the force used was

objectively unreasonable rather than maliciously or sadisticallyunder the Eighth Amendment. 2015

WL 2473447, - - - S. Ct. - - - -, at * 5-9 (2015). However, this does not change the outcome of the

plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Hughes. The plaintiff contends that while he was

being booked into the Jail, Defendant Hughes struck him in the head twice, threw him on the

concrete and tile floor, causing the plaintiff to strike his head on the floor and knock him

unconscious. (Doc. 7 at 5-6). Next, the plaintiff claims Defendant Hughes dragged him out of the

holding cell and out of the camera’s range. (Id.). The plaintiff alleges he sustained “lacerations” to

his back. (Doc. 7 at 6). Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no

indication of a need for any force against the plaintiff and Defendant Hughes’s actions were

unprovoked and unnecessaryand, therefore, objectivelyunreasonable. On the other hand,Defendant

Hughes maintains that he was not even at the Jail at the time of the alleged assault. (Doc. 14-8,

Hughes Aff. ¶ 6). Therefore, there is a genuine dispute of material fact which the court cannot

reconcile on a motion for summary judgment. 

5

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 5 of 7
entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture because the plaintiff has sufficiently

alleged that they violated constitutional rights which were clearly established prior

to the alleged acts. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the

court file, including the report and recommendation and the objections thereto, the

court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby

ADOPTED and the magistrate judge’s recommendation is ACCEPTED. The

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on the

plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacities for monetary

relief;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment excessive force and failure to protects claims against

Defendants Leon, Scott, Sanders, and Watts;

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the plaintiff’s

Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Hughes;

and

6

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 6 of 7
4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED on the plaintiff’s

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and failure to protect

claims on the basis of qualified immunity. 

Additionally, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

Defendants Leon, Scott, Sanders, Watts, and Hughes are hereby ORDERED

to file an answer within twenty (20) days of the entry date of this order.

DONE this 25th day of August, 2015.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

7

Case 2:13-cv-00852-AKK-JEO Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 7 of 7