FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 86 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 11 90 -HLA-MCR W ENDALLJERM AINE HALL , Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us JEFF REY K. BENNET T, Offi cer, Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: W en da ll Jerm ai ne Hall , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on in m at e, ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Offic er J effr ey

K. Benn et t, anem

pl oyee of th e Fl or id a Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s. Aft er o ral arg um en t an d
rev ie w of the reco rdan d p art ie s’ bri efs , we rev ers e. The re co rdat t hi s junc tu re pr es en ts a m at eri al is su e o f fac t, p recl ud in g s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Offi cer Ben ne tt . I. BACK GROUND Bec au se we are re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Offi cer B en ne tt , we m

us t v ie w th e fac ts inth e li gh t m os t favo rab le to Hall . At th e ti m e o f th e al le ge d i nc id en t, Hal l was a pr is on er atFlo rid a St at e Pri so n. On 1 Nov em be r 10 , 20 08 , Hall was wo rk in g a s an ord erl y inon e o f th e p ris on ’s win gs . Offi cer B en ne ttwas m on it or in g a ct iv ity inth atwin g. Hal l ap pr oa ch edOffic er Ben ne ttan d re lay eda reque stfro m an ot he r in m at e fo r so m e fo rm s. Fu rth er, Hal l
av ers th atOffic er Be nn et t (1 ) to okHall to th e sh owe r are a, (2 ) “ th reat en edto ki ll [Hal l],” an d (3 ) pr oc eed edto : de lib er at el y [, ] m al ic iou sly [, ] w anto nl y [,] an d sa di st ic al ly ph y si cal ly be at an d punc h[ ] [Hal l] rep eat ed ly with hi s fis t in [Hal l’s] st om ach , si de s of [Hal l’s] bo dy, [an d] ba ck [.] [Offi cer Ben ne tt ] phy sic al ly sla p[pe d] [Hal l] in [h is ] face an d sp it hi s sa li va in [Hal l’s] face [. Offi cer Ben ne tt ] st at ed to [Hal l] th at [h e] was a ni gg er des se rv in g [si c] of th is be at in g be cau se [h e is ] bl ack [. Offi cer Ben ne t t ] c au s ed [h im ] se ve re ph y si cal pa in , ph y si cal in

jury[,] an d m en ta l an gu is h, se ve re de pr es si on , rep eat ed vo m m it ti ng [s i c ] of bl oo d an d se ve re st om ach pa in an d se ve re fear of be in g k il le d b y

Offic er Be nn et t, an d fu tu re h arm to [Hal l’s] hea lth[ .]
Hall is now confine d at a diff ere nt prison. 1 2Afte r th e Nov em be r 10 th all eg edin ci de nt , Hall fil eda fo rm al em erg en cy gr ie va nc e to th e p ris onward en , all eg in g p hysic al ab us e, raci al sl ur s, an d t hr eat s b y Offi cer B en ne tt . Hall da te d the gri ev an ce No ve m be r 12 , 20 08 , alt ho ug h t he gr ie va nc e lo g re co rd edth e g rie va nc e as rece iv edon Nov em be r 18 , 20 08 . Office r Ben ne ttvi go ro us ly den ie d a ll all eg at io ns . On No ve m

be r 16 an d 1 8, 2 00 8, Hal l s ub mit te d v irtua ll y id en ti cal Inmate Si ck -Cal l Re qu es ts . In the reque st s, Hal l as ke d fo r m ed ic al care forph y si cal pa in to hi s s to m ach , bac k, an d c he stcau se d b y Offic er Be nn et t’s al le ge d b eat in g. Afte r Hal l s ue d Off

ic er Be nn ett u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , Offic er Be nn et t
m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t. Am on g o th er ev id en ce, Offi cer B en ne ttsubm it te d hi s af fid av it , whi chco ntrad ic te d Hal l’s s worn v ers io n o f ev en ts . Office r Ben ne tt st at edth athe ha d p rev io us ly ord eredHall no t t o s tandinfro ntof t he pri so n c el ls
an d t al k t o the in m at es . Howev er, o n No ve m be r 10 , 20 08 , Offic er Be nn ett ob se rv edHall st an di ng infro ntof a no th er i nm at e’s cel l an d t al ki ng to hi m , in vi ol at io n o f th e p rev io us ord er. Bec au se Hall was d is ob ey in g h is ord er, Offi cer Ben ne ttackno wled ge d tha t h e p la cedHall in“ cu ffs ” an d s ecu redhi m inth e pr is on ’s sh owe r are a unt il th e d eci si on was m ad e to return Hal l t o h is owncel l. Offi cer B en ne tt , ho wev er, d en ie d u si ng raci al sl ur s o r th reat s, o r ph y si cal ly ab us in g Hal l. 3Hall res po nd edwith h is ownm ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Insupp ort o f hi s m ot io n, Hal l s ub mit te d h is affi da vi t, co pi es of h is pri so n g rie va nc e, th e pr is on ’s res po ns es , a carb on co py of h is si ckcal l re qu es t fr om Nov em be r 18 , 20 08 , andco pi es of t he rep orts fro m hi s No ve m

be r 17 an d No ve m

be r 20 , 20 08
m ed ic al ex am in at io ns . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Off ic er Be nn et t’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d d en ie d Hal l’s m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt, quo ti ng Sco ttv. Harr is , 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 3 80 , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 76 9, 1 77 6 (2 00 7) , con cl ud edth atHall ’s ver si on of t he st ory was “bl at an tl y

co nt rad ic te d b y

th e rec or d, s o t ha t n o re as on ab le jury co ul d b el ie ve it .” II . DISCUSSI ON W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, co ns id eri ng th e fac ts an d drawi ng reas on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Man n v . TaserInt ’l, Inc., 5 88 F.3d12 91 , 13 03 (11 th Cir
. 20 09 ). In c as es wher e o pp os in g p art ie s t el l d iff eren t v ers io ns of the same even ts , an d o ne is “bl at an tl y

co ntrad ic te d b y

th e rec or d, s o t ha t n o re as on ab le jury co ul d be li ev e it , a co urt s ho ul d n otad op t tha t v ers io n o f th e fac ts .” Po urm og ha ni
Esfa ha ni v. Gee, 6 25 F.3d13 13 , 13 15 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng Sco tt , 55 0 U.S. at38 0)
. 4Afte r rev ie w of the reco rdev id en ce, cre di ti ng Hall ’s affi davi t as we m us t, we co nc lu de th ata m at eri al is su e o f factex is ts as t o wh ethe r Offi cer B en ne tt ph y si cal ly abu se d Hal l an d u se d ra ci al sl ur s. Inad op ti ng Offic er Be nn et t’s
ve rs io n o f ev en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt re li edinpa rt o n Hal l’s m ed ic al reco rd s an d the la ckof d oc um en ta ti on of a ny vis ib le in juri es . W e rec og ni ze tha t i n c ert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , a pl ai nt iff’s ver si on of e ve nt s can b e b la tant ly con tra di ct edby vi de ot ap es or o th er o ve rwh el m in g p hysic al ev id en ce an d t es ti m on y . See Sco tt , 55 0 U.S. at38 0, 1 27 S. Ct. at17 76 (su m m ary jud gm en t ap pr op ria te wher e v id eo ev id en ce “ ut te rly dis cred it ed ” th e p la in ti ff’s v ers io n o f ev en ts ); Ke si ng er ex rel
. Est at e o f Kes in ge r v. Herrin gt on , 38 1 F .3d12 43 , 12 49 -5 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (s umm ary jud gm en t ap pr op ria te wher e m ul ti pl e aff id av it s an d p ho to gr ap hi c ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d o ne ey ewit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y , who ha d h im se lf e arl ie r gi ve n a di ffer en t ac co un t). Here , ho wev er, we can no t s ay th e ev id en ce i n t hi s p art ic ul ar reco rdris es to th e le ve l n eces sa ry to de em Hall ’s swo rnacco un t b la tant ly
co nt rad ic te d. Hal l h adhi s b lo oddra wn o n No ve m be r 12 fora th yro idpro fil e, bu t he was n otph y si cal ly exam in ed . Hall ’s firs t p hysic al m ed ic al ex am in at io n oc cu rredon Nov em

be r 13 . The No ve m

be r 13 m ed ic al rep ort n ot edth atHall ’s ba ckpa in was i n the areaof a n o ldwou ndan d t ha t Hal l was pre sc rib edib up ro fen fo r hi s re po rte d b ackan d c he stpa in . Howev er, the rep ort d oe s n otest ab li sh th e 5ex te ntof t he ex am in at io n o r fl at ly refut e Hal l’s v ers io n o f th e ev en ts . As fo r

whe th er Hal l’s d el ay

insee ki ng m ed ic al tre atm en t d is cred it s h is st ory , th atis an in fere nc e fo r th e jury to m ak e. Andfurth er, wh il e Hal l’s m ed ic al rep orts di d n ot no te an y ob vi ou s i njurie s, we ar e m in df ul of t he factth atth e fo cu s o f th e in qu iry is
on th e n atur e o f th e fo rce app li ed , no t the ex te ntof i nju ry . See Wilk in s v . Gaddy , 55 9 U.S. _

_, 1 30 S. Ct. 1 17 5, 1 17 8 (2 01 0) (pe r cu ria m). Si m pl y pu t, we ar e le ft wi th two co m pe ti ng , con tra di ct ory

st or ie s o f wha t happ en ed . The d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y weig he d t he witne ss es ’ cred ib il ity by fav or in g Off

ic er Be nn et t’s ac co un t o ve r Hal l’s. W e th us va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s
or de r, da te d Jun e 1 0, 2 01 0, g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o Off

ic er Be nn et t, an d
rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs on Hall ’s cla im s. 2 VACATED an d REMANDED.

We conclude, how ever , that the district court prope rly denied Ha ll’s motion for defa ult 2 judgme nt. 6