1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

JAMES ANTHONY HUNTER §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv154

OFFICE BOLLER, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff James Anthony Hunter, an inmate of the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se, 

filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his 

constitutional rights. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules 

for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. This Report concerns the motion 

for summary judgment filed by the Defendants Mitchell, Taylor, and Boller.

I. The Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (docket no. 9) is the operative pleading in the lawsuit. In his 

amended complaint, Plaintiff states that on November 18, 2022, while he was being escorted from 

one part of the jail to another, with his hands cuffed behind his back, Officers Mitchell and Taylor 

deliberately pounded the crown of his head into the doors of an elevator and along its walls several 

times. He says that as a result, he required medical intervention, which revealed that he had spinal 

injuries ultimately requiring surgery.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff says that he was laying on his bed “fully demonstrating 

compliance with my hands behind my back and my feet crossed at the ankles, awaiting to be 

escorted from his segregation cell. While he was in that position, Plaintiff states that Boller struck 

him in the neck with his fist and forearm more than once. According to Plaintiff, this incident

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:

405
2

required him to have immediate surgical intervention involving discs in his neck which were 

protruding out of place or from their natural alignment.

Plaintiff’s original complaint included documentation showing that he was seen atMother 

Frances Hospital on February 27, 2023, with cervical myelopathy, and he was scheduled for a C3/4 

anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with SSEPS with Dr. N. Andrade on March 8, 2023. A 

grievance formfromPlaintiff dated March 16, 2023 indicated that thissurgery wasin fact performed 

on March 8.

II. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants state that on November 18, 2022, 

Officer Mykayla Wideman was performing head count when Plaintiff came to the vestibule and 

complained that his tray had been thrown away. Officer Justin Mitchell heard raised voices and 

went to the area to provide additional officer presence. He saw Officer Wideman in the vestibule 

trying to keep Plaintiff from pushing past her and exiting the pod. Officers Mikayla Powers and 

Dalton Taylor also came to the scene. Plaintiff demanded to speak to a supervisor about food and 

blankets, and Sgt. Barnett called over the emergency speaker and told Plaintiff to go to the back 

speaker to talk, but Plaintiff did not comply.

The Defendants state that Mitchell repeatedly ordered Plaintiff to step out of the doorway 

and back into the dayroom, but Plaintiff refused to comply. Instead, Plaintiff continued to try to 

force his way out of the cell and into the vestibule. Mitchell stepped forward and pushed Plaintiff 

back into the dayroom with an open hand on Plaintiff’s chest.

Officer Powers was in the cell and the Defendants state that she tried to leave, but Plaintiff 

moved back into the vestibule and shouldered Powers aside, preventing her from leaving the cell. 

Mitchell again pushed Plaintiff back into the cell to allow Powers to leave. Powers was able to 

squeeze past Plaintiff into the vestibule, and Plaintiff tried to force his way out of the cell. He 

became aggressive with Mitchell and grabbed the bars of the cell door and hooked his leg around 

the gate to keep the officers from moving him back.

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:

406
3

The Defendants state that Mitchell and Taylor tried to place Plaintiff in handcuffs but 

Plaintiff was non-compliant and continued to block the vestibule. Wideman unhooked Plaintiff’s 

leg and Powers tried to push himout of the vestibule. Mitchell placed handcuffs on Plaintiff’s left 

wrist and pulled Plaintiff’s hand off the bars and behind his back. Plaintiff tried to pull his hand 

away. Taylorsought to place Plaintiff’sright hand in the cuffs, but Plaintiff grabbed hisjumper and 

prevented the officers from restraining him. Wideman initiated a “code red” while Plaintiff 

continued to refuse to comply.

Additional officers arrived and Plaintiff was taken to the ground and secured in restraints. 

Once he was secured, he was lifted to his feet and escorted out of the cell. Sgt. Bradam told the 

officers to take him to the clinic for evaluation. The medical personnel determined that he had no 

apparent injuries and cleared him to be rehoused. Medical personnel ordered an X-ray which 

Plaintiff refused. However, a later X-ray showed no remarkable notations. Plaintiff subsequently 

received a disciplinary case, to which he pleaded guilty.

As summary judgment evidence, the Defendants offer incident reports written by Officers 

Wideman, Mitchell, Powers, Taylor, and Bradam, an email from Sgt. Bradam to the jail 

administration describing the incident, a medical request from Plaintiff describing the incident, to 

which the response noted that Plaintiff had refused his X-ray and asking if he wanted the X-ray now, 

a grievance filed by Plaintiff which was denied with the notation that the incident had been reviewed 

and cleared by jail staff, an appeal of this grievance which was denied by Captain Martin, another 

grievance which was denied with the notation that the use of force was reviewed and cleared, with 

a comment that X-rays had been taken and there was no remarkable notations by the doctor, and a 

copy of the disciplinary case and hearing result.

Plaintiff’s medical request stated that he was in handcuffs behind his back when the officer 

lifted his arms up, causing him to lean forward. The officer rammed the crown of his head into the 

steel doors in the hallway and again into the wall in the back of the elevator during the escort to the 

medical department. Plaintiffsaid that his arm was broken in an attempt to have the officer alleviate

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:

407
4

the pressure, and so the medical department ordered an X-ray. He refused because his arm was 

mobile, but several days later he began noticing severe pain in his neck. The nurse told him that it 

was not broken because he was standing, but he would like to be assessed.

Plaintiff’s grievance stated that Mitchell tried to place hand restraints on him and then 

grabbed him by the genitals and threw him to the ground. After handcuffing him, Plaintiff said that 

Mitchell had his arms lifted with too much force, causing him to lean forward, and rammed the 

crown of his head into the steel door and elevator walls. He said that he received X-rays for neck 

injuries and that he has spinal stenosis because excessive force was used.

TheDefendants’motion forsummary judgment does not addressthe claimof excessive force 

in January of 2023 and contains no reference to Officer Boller.

III. Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff states that he does not know how to properly respond to a motion for summary 

judgment and he does not have counsel. He argues that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified 

immunity because they violated his clearly established rights. He states that the facts, taken in the 

light most favorable to him, show a violation of his rights which would have been known to a 

reasonable person. Plaintiff also argues that the use of force caused him to suffer some harm.

IV. Discussion

Summary judgment is properly granted only when, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party, the movant shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ellis v. Garza-Lopez, slip op. no. 23-

10022, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13305, 2023 WL 3723634 (5th Cir., May 30, 2023); Burleson v.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 589 (5th Cir. 2004). If the moving party meets 

the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the existence of a genuine 

issue for trial. Id., citing Allen v. Rapides Parish School Board, 204 F.3d 619, 621 (5th Cir. 2000). 

However, summary judgment disposition is inappropriate if the evidence before the Court, viewed

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:

408
5

as a whole, could lead to different factual findings and conclusions. Honore v. Douglas, 833 F.2d 

565, 567 (5th Cir. 1987).

In Falcon v. Holly, civil action no. 5:09cv66, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160429, 2011 WL 

131512842 (N.D.Tex., July 8, 2011), vacated and remanded 480 F.App’x 325, 2012 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 13602, 2012 WL 2579926 (5th Cir., July 3, 2012), the prisoner complained that he asked to 

see the psychiatrist but the defendant officer said no and told him to sit down. The prisoner refused 

to obey the order. The officer pulled the prisoner out of the dayroom, refused to allow him to see 

a ranking officer, pulled him to the ground, and punched him.

The defendantfiled a motion forsummary judgment arguing that he was entitled to summary 

judgment because there was a clear need for the use of force after the prisoner’s request for a 

psychiatrist was denied and he refused the ordersto sit down and to return to his cell. The defendant 

included as evidence an affidavit from the warden, an affidavit from the defendant, statements by 

the prisoner, records pertaining the use of force investigation, and excerpts from the prisoner’s 

medical records. The prisoner filed a response to the motion repeating his claims and stating that 

the use of force was needless because he was attempting to cooperate with the order given, meaning 

there was a disputed issue of fact.

The district court determined that the prisoner had not furnished any competent summary 

judgment evidence sufficient to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. 

The district court also characterized the prisoner’s claims as conclusory.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in finding that the prisoner did 

not present any evidence to support his allegations, observing that the verified complaint and other 

verified pleadingsserve as competentsummary judgment evidence. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 

762, 765 (5th Cir. 2003). The Fifth Circuit also determined that the district court improperly 

credited the defendant’s version of events, stating that the prisoner’s credibility was not an issue 

appropriate for determination on summary judgment. Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 753 (5th 

Cir. 2005).

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:

409
6

The Defendants here argue that the summary judgment evidence shows that the force used 

against Plaintiff was not malicious and sadistic for the very purpose of causing harm, reiterating 

their version of the facts. They state that Plaintiff’s amended complaint “offers a very different 

version of events” but contend that “this version of events is not supported by the summary 

judgment evidence in this case.” However, the Defendants fail to note that Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint, which was sworn under penalty of perjury, is itself summary judgment evidence. Hart, 

343 F.3d at 765; Hicks v. Perry, slip op. no. 22-40755, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3506, 2024 WL

512588 (5th Cir., February 9, 2024).

Defendants in effect ask that the Court credit their version of events over that of Plaintiff. 

This is not a proper function for summary judgment. Tarver, 410 F.3d at 753; Sanchez v. Fraley, 

376 F.App’x 449, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9046, 2010 WL 1752123 (5th Cir., April 30, 2010). The

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the November 18, 2022 incident is without 

merit.

Although the Defendants seek summary judgment on behalf of Officer Boller with respect 

to the January 17, 2023 incident, their motion provides no argument concerning this incident, nor 

does any of the summary judgment evidence provided by the Defendants mention it; all of the 

documents attached to the Defendants’ motion refer to the November 18, 2022 incident. Instead, 

the motion simply asserts that Officer Boller’s conduct was reasonable and that he, Mitchell, and 

Taylor did not strike Plaintiff, pepper spray him, or use a taser on him. This conclusory assertion 

is not sufficient to support summary judgment.

The Defendants also invoke their entitlement to qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit has 

explained that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields officialsfrom civil liability so long astheir 

conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 

person would have known. Crane v. City of Arlington, 50 F.4th 453, 463 (5th Cir. 2022). When a 

defendant officialmovesforsummary judgment onthe basis of qualified immunity, the burden shifts 

to the plaintiff, who must then rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:

410
7

the officials’ allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law; however, all facts must 

be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant and all justifiable inferences must be drawn 

in his favor. Id; Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722, 727 (5th Cir. 2018).

The evidence in this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, shows that on 

November 18, 2022, Officers Mitchell and Taylor were taking Plaintiff from one part of the jail to 

another. Plaintiff was in handcuffs. Mitchell raised Plaintiff’s arms up, causing him to lean 

forward, and then he and Taylor rammed Plaintiff’s head into the door and wall of an elevator 

multiple times. Any reasonable jailer would know that this conduct, if proven, would violate the 

clearly established constitutional rights of a jail inmate. See, e.g., Fennell v. Quintela, 393 F.App’x 

150, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17867 (5th Cir., August 25, 2010), citing Clark v. Gonzalez, slip op. 

no 96-4116, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 41885, 1997 WL 681275 (5th Cir., October 23, 1997)

(slamming prisoner into the wall was excessive force when prisoner was handcuffed and posed no 

threat).

Likewise, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence showsthat on January 

17, 2023, Plaintiff was laying on his bed with his hands behind his back and his feet crossed at the 

ankles waiting for an escort when Officer Boller struck him in the neck with his fist and forearm 

multiple times. A reasonable jailer would know that such conduct, if proven, would violate 

Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. The existence of these factual disputes preclude 

the entry of summary judgment or a determination that the Defendants are entitled to qualified 

immunity.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket 

no. 45) be denied.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objections within 14 days after being servedwith a copy.

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:

411
8

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st day of April, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00154-JCB-KNM Document 65 Filed 04/01/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:

412