Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05083/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05083-12/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CARLOS E. GUTIERREZ PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5083

JERAH KERN, in her capacity as

Personal Representative for the

Estate of Wesley Kern DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 14th day of December, 2006, come on for

consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate

Judge (document #55), and plaintiff’s Objections thereto (document

#56), and the Court, having carefully reviewed both documents,

finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging

that Wesley Kern, a now-deceased employee of the Washington

County, Arkansas, Sheriff’s Department, used excessive force

against him during an altercation at the Washington County

Detention Center. 

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge

reported that Kern was the only officer present when over thirty

inmates at the Washington County Detention Center began a vocal

protest over Kern's instruction regarding food trays, which

escalated into a physical confrontation between Kern and Gutierrez

when Gutierrez refused to give Kern his name and pulled away from

Kern when Kern reached for Gutierrez' identification bracelet.

She reported that it was reasonable for Kern to use some degree of

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 57 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

force to bring the situation under control. Since there were no

marks on Gutierrez' body and Gutierrez made no complaint that his

coughing was related to Kern's use of force, she recommended that

Gutierrez' excessive force claim against Kern be dismissed.

2. Gutierrez first objects that Kern could have handled the

situation differently, i.e., by simply talking to him, or

handcuffing him, or leaving the pod to go for assistance.

Gutierrez admits he resisted Kern by pulling back when Kern

reached for his identification bracelet, and that other inmates

were throwing trays. The Court declines the invitation to secondguess the conduct of a jail official in handling a situation where

an detainee admittedly resisted the official's attempts to deal

with an escalating situation. Cf. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

547 (1979)(prison administrators accorded deference in practices

needed to preserve internal order, discipline, and security). So

long as the official's conduct does not violate the law, the fact

that he might have handled the situation differently is of no

legal significance, and this objection will be overruled.

3. Gutierrez next objects that the two nurses who testified

were not qualified to give opinions about the cause of neck pain.

This objection will be overruled because, regardless of the

qualifications of the nurses to offer opinion testimony, there was

nothing other than Gutierrez' testimony at the evidentiary hearing

to connect the conduct of Kern with Gutierrez' neck pain.

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 57 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Gutierrez did not even tell the jail medical care providers about

the altercation when he sought care for his cough. 

4. Gutierrez also objects that, even if his physical

injuries as a result of the altercation are deemed de minimis, he

has suffered mental anguish. This objection must be overruled for

two reasons. First, Gutierrez did not offer any testimony about

his alleged mental anguish at the evidentiary hearing, and thus

there is nothing in the record to support it. In addition, a de

minimis physical injury such as Gutierrez sustained will not

support an award of damages for mental anguish under 42 U.S.C.

§1997e(e). See, e.g., Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 536 (3d

Cir. 2003), cited with approval in Pratt v. Corrections

Corporation of America, 124 Fed.Appx. 465 (8th Cir. 2005).

5. Finally, Gutierrez objects that he has never received

responses to discovery from defendant, in spite of a court order

directing such response. He does not show what the discovery

consisted of, and defendant denies ever having received any such

discovery. The Court has no basis, on this record, to conclude

that defendant's failure to provide discovery in any way affects

the outcome of this case, and this objection will be overruled.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge is adopted in toto, and plaintiff's

Objections thereto are overruled.

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

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 57 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge, plaintiff's

Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05083-JLH Document 57 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>