[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14763

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cv-00796-RDP-HGD

BERNARD JEMISON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT SIMMONS, 

GARY MALONE, 

KENNETH HEFLIN, 

BRYAN CHAPMAN, 

STANLEY BATTLES, 

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 16, 2013)

Before HULL, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 1 of 12 
2

Bernard Jemison, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, sued Officers Bryan Chapman and Stanley Battles, Sergeant Kenneth 

Heflin, Lieutenant Gary Malone, and Captain Robert Simmons (collectively, the 

Defendants1

), alleging retaliation and excessive force in violation of his First and 

Eighth Amendment rights. Jemison was represented by counsel at a bench trial2

where the parties agreed that he sustained certain injuries following his removal to 

a prison exercise yard on April 21, 2009, but disagreed about how and why 

Jemison came to be injured. The district court found in favor of the Defendants 

because it found their version of events more credible. Jemison now appeals.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Much of the evidence presented at trial was not in dispute. Bernard Jemison 

is an Alabama prisoner with a history of filing lawsuits against prison guards and 

other employees of the Alabama Department of Corrections. On April 21, 2009, 

while he was in the Segregation Unit at the St. Clair Correctional Facility, 

Jemison’s cell flooded. Prison records introduced by Jemison indicate that prison 

staff noticed the flooding at approximately 12:26 p.m., and shut off the water to 

Jemison’s side of the cell block four minutes later, at 12:30. At 12:46, prison staff

 1

 The Defendants are each employees (or former employees) of the Alabama Department of 

Corrections and worked at the St. Clair Correctional Facility in Springville, Alabama, the prison 

where Jemison alleged the constitutional violations to have occurred. 

2

 Jemison prepared his complaint pro se, but acquired counsel prior to trial. He dismissed his 

counsel immediately after the district court delivered its judgment and is proceeding pro se on 

appeal. 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 2 of 12 
3

arrived to supervise the clean-up of Jemison’s side of the cell block. At 12:54, a 

maintenance worker isolated the water shutoff to Jemison’s cell, and turned the 

water back on to the rest of the cell block. Records further indicate that 

“[d]isciplinary action was taken on . . . Jemison” for having caused the flooding, 

but that he was nonetheless allowed to remain in his cell at that time. 

However, more than two hours later, at around 3:00 p.m., Captain Simmons 

ordered that Jemison be removed from his cell. The records show that at 3:10, 

Lieutenant Malone, Sergeant Heflin, and Officers Chapman and Battles, arrived at 

Jemison’s cell, handcuffed him, shackled him in leg irons, and led him to the 

exercise yard. The guards did not take Jemison to the exercise yard nearest his 

cell; instead they walked him to the yard outside cell block A. In the exercise yard, 

the guards forced Jemison to lie on the ground. Sometime later, the guards left the 

yard, leaving Jemison behind. Jemison remained in the exercise yard, handcuffed 

and unattended, for approximately four hours.

All parties agreed that prior to leaving the cell block, Jemison had no visible 

injuries. The same was not true when Sergeant James Marsh (a prison guard not 

named in Jemison’s complaint) recovered Jemison from the exercise yard four 

hours later. Before returning him to his cell, Marsh took Jemison to the prison 

infirmary, where a nurse examiner prepared a body chart at 7:00 p.m. documenting

“whelps [and] bruises” around each of Jemison’s wrists and ankles, and a “swollen 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 3 of 12 
4

area” under his right eye. The body chart also indicated that Jemison informed the 

nurse that the guards “beat him down [and] in the ribs.” The chart did not indicate, 

however, whether the nurse visually inspected Jemison’s torso for signs of a 

beating. 

One week later, on April 28, a prison doctor prescribed Jemison pain 

medicine to treat his “left low[er] rib pain.” This prescription followed an 

examination prompted by Jemison’s complaints of significant pain in his “middle 

rib cage” due to an “altercation [with] Officer[s]” on April 21. The doctor noted 

“[t]enderness” on the exam form, but once again did not indicate whether 

Jemison’s torso was inspected for signs of abuse. 

Although the parties agreed that Jemison suffered injuries on April 21, they 

disagreed significantly about the source of, and motivation behind, those injuries. 

Jemison stated in his complaint—executed on April 22, the day after the alleged 

attack—and testified at trial, that the Defendants removed him from his cell and 

took him to the exercise yard where they “hogtied” him by connecting his 

handcuffs and leg shackles to a “belly chain,” and then beat him around the torso. 

According to Jemison, the beating occurred at the direction of Captain Simmons, 

who was frustrated by the “complaints that [Jemison] filed.” Jemison explained 

that the officers attempted to conceal their abuse by taking him to an exercise yard 

that could not be seen from his cell block, and by limiting their punches to his

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 4 of 12 
5

torso, and claimed that the swelling around his eye was caused by “a wild punch”

that inadvertently went too high. Jemison further explained that the guards hid the 

fact that they hogtied him by sending an unidentified “white, male officer” to 

remove his leg shackles and belly chain shortly before Sergeant Marsh discovered 

him in the yard.

3

 Jemison testified that the nurse that examined him the day of the 

attack did not mark down the injuries to his torso because she saw him for only 

“two minutes” and never lifted his shirt, telling him instead, “I’ll document what 

you tell me.” 

The Defendants had a different account of the source of Jemison’s injuries 

on April 21. To the last man the Defendants denied involvement in an attack, and 

even that an attack occurred. The Defendants also denied that Jemison was 

hogtied. To explain why Jemison was removed from his cell more than two hours 

after flooding was initially observed, the Defendants each testified that at 3:00 p.m. 

“a large volume of water” remained in Jemison’s cell and that Jemison was taken 

to the exercise yard so that the water could be cleaned up. The Defendants agreed 

with Jemison that they took him to exercise yard A because that yard is not visible 

from his cell block, though they stated that yard A is still fully visible by prisoners 

in other areas of the prison (specifically, cell block A). The Defendants justified 

their decision by explaining that in yard A Jemison was less likely to create a 

 3

 Sergeant Marsh, called to testify by the Defendants, stated that Jemison was not hogtied, 

shackled, or in pain when he found him in the exercise yard. 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 5 of 12 
6

“problem” by “agitat[ing] the other inmates” than if he were left in the yard nearest 

his cellbock. 

Because the Defendants left Jemison unattended in the yard for four hours, 

they could not offer a definitive explanation regarding the source of his injuries. 

However, as part of Jemison’s redirect examination, Captain Simmons speculated

that the bruising to Jemison’s wrists and ankles was caused when Jemison “pulled

against the handcuffs and leg irons,” and that the swelling to his eye was caused by 

“fall[ing] into something.” Finally, the Defendants argued that the nurse examiner 

did not indicate injuries to Jemison’s torso because there were none to be found 

following a full examination, which included Jemison lifting his shirt. 

After Jemison rested, the Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. 

The district court denied the motion because the issues in the case “turn[ed] on the 

credibility of the witnesses.” The Defendants renewed their motion following a 

brief defense case (limited to the testimony of Sergeant Marsh), which the district 

court again denied, for the same reason. After closing arguments, the parties 

submitted the case. 

The district court adjourned to deliberate Jemison’s case and returned a

verdict in favor of the Defendants. Emphasizing that “th[e] case boil[ed] down to a 

very simple, straightforward credibility match between the Plaintiff on the one side 

and the correctional officers on the other,” the court credited the version of events 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 6 of 12 
7

recounted by the Defendants. Specifically, the court found that Jemison was 

removed to the yard at the direction of Captain Simmons because water remained 

in his cell and needed to be cleaned up. Noting that the exercise yard was clearly 

visible from the windows in cell block A, and that the attack was alleged to have 

occurred during the daylight hours, the court simply did not believe Jemison’s 

account. The court also discredited Jemison’s version of his initial nurse’s 

examination as having been cursory and unprofessional, explaining “I don’t think 

that all the things that were documented on the medical chart could have been 

accomplished in two minutes.” Finally, the court indicated that it “was particularly 

impressed with the testimony of . . . Lieutenant Malone, who very firmly said he

would not allow [the beating] to happen; that is against their policy, and he would 

not permit that to occur,” and that the minor inconsistencies in the remaining 

Defendants’ testimony tended to corroborate Malone’s account because such 

inconsistences indicated “heartfelt, credible answers,” rather than “robotic 

answers.”4

 4

 It is not disputed that Jemison was left handcuffed and unattended in the exercise yard for four 

hours. The district court determined that this was due merely to the Defendants’ negligence and 

was not sufficient, of itself, to create a constitutional violation. Jemison does not contest this 

point on appeal, and therefore he has abandoned any challenge to this determination. Timson v. 

Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant 

are deemed abandoned.”). 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 7 of 12 
8

This pro se appeal followed. While his appeal was under review, Jemison 

filed with this court a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent further 

mistreatment by the Defendants pending the outcome of his case. 

II. DISCUSSION

“We read liberally briefs filed pro se.” Lorisme v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 1441, 

1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997). So read, Jemison’s briefs raise two cognizable issues on 

appeal. First he argues that the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial character 

evidence. Second he argues that the district court’s judgment was against the 

weight of the evidence. We address each argument in turn.5

 

A.

Jemison’s first argument is that the trial court erred by admitting improper 

character evidence when it allowed Lieutenant Malone to testify that Jemison has a 

 5

 Other issues that Jemison raises in his appeal are either not cognizable or have been waived. 

Jemison’s claim that his trial counsel’s performance was so substandard that it “deprived him of 

the right to receive a fundamental[ly] fair trial” fails because “there is no constitutional or 

statutory right to effective assistance of counsel on a civil case.” Mekdeci v. Merrell Nat’l Labs., 

711 F.2d 1510, 1522 & n.19 (11th Cir. 1983) (quotation marks omitted). Similarly, Jemison’s 

argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it 

limited his redirect examination of Lieutenant Malone fails because “[t]he Sixth Amendment is 

limited by its very terms to criminal prosecutions,” Little v. City of N. Miami, 805 F.2d 962, 968 

(11th Cir. 1986), and the record does not otherwise indicate that the district court unreasonably 

restricted Jemison’s questioning of Malone, see Fed. R. Evid. 611(a); Akouri v. Fla. Dep’t of 

Transp., 408 F.3d 1338, 1346 (11th Cir. 2005). Finally, Jemison’s argument that the district 

court “committed plain error b[y] refusing to allow [him] to receive a trial by jury despite his 

request[] in [his] complaint” is waived because neither he nor his trial counsel objected to a 

bench trial despite: 1) having received ample notice that his case would be tried without a jury;

and 2) having actively participated in the bench trial. See Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel, 534 

F.2d 639, 645 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[I]n a civil case a waiver (of right to jury after demand) is shown 

by mere acquiescence, when the party or his counsel is present and not objecting.” (quotation 

marks omitted)). 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 8 of 12 
9

history of flooding his cell, setting fires in his cell, and throwing feces at prison 

staff, and is generally known to have “a negative attitude.” The district court 

admitted this testimony over Jemison’s objection “for the limited purpose of . . . 

explain[ing] what [Malone] understood he was walking into when he was tasked 

with going into the cell.” In its findings of fact, the district court relied on this 

evidence as the basis for why Malone and the other guards handcuffed and 

shackled Jemison, and removed him to exercise yard A while they cleaned his cell.

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and 

will not reverse an evidentiary decision unless the ruling is “manifestly erroneous.” 

Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 

1103 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). “Evidence of a person’s 

character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion 

the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). 

Likewise, “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a 

person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in 

accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Finally, “[t]he court may 

exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a 

danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

We are not convinced that the district court’s decision to admit evidence of 

Jemison’s prior behavioral problems was “manifestly erroneous.” Cook, 402 F.3d 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 9 of 12 
10

at 1103. Malone’s testimony was not admitted to prove that Jemison was acting 

out on April 21. Instead, as explained by the district court, the evidence was 

admitted to explain why Lieutenant Malone and the other guards restrained 

Jemison and removed him to yard A during the cleanup. The district court relied 

on Malone’s testimony for precisely this purpose. Thus, Jemison’s argument that 

the district court’s judgment must be reversed because the trial judge admitted 

improper character evidence fails.6

B.

Next, Jemison argues that the district court’s judgment was against the 

weight of the evidence. In particular, he contends that the documentary evidence 

he introduced at trial clearly contradicted the Defendants’ testimony, which was 

predictably “fabricated” and self-serving, and that the trial court’s decision to 

credit the Defendants’ testimony over his exhibits and his own testimony 

“create[d] a manifest injustice.” 

We review a district court’s bench trial findings of fact for clear error, and 

its conclusions of law de novo. O’Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257, 1265 

(11th Cir. 2001). When, as here, fact findings are based on credibility 

 6

 Additionally, even if we were to assume this evidence was inadmissible, “[i]n bench trials, 

judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they are presumed to ignore when making 

decisions.” Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346, 102 S. Ct. 460, 465 (1981); see also Gulf States 

Utils. Co. v. Ecodyne Corp., 635 F.2d 517, 519 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (indicating that “Rule 403 

has no logical application to bench trials” because in a bench trial, the judge can exclude from 

his mind improper inferences drawn from inadmissible evidence in reaching a decision). 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 10 of 12 
11

determinations we must give “even greater deference to the trial court’s findings; 

for only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of 

voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is 

said.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S. Ct. 

1504, 1512 (1985). When a district court’s judgment “is based on his decision to 

credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a 

coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, 

that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.” Id.

The district court did not commit clear error in crediting the Defendants’

testimony over Jemison’s. Contrary to Jemison’s assertions, the documentary 

evidence introduced at trial did not contradict the Defendants’ accounts of what 

occurred on April 21. The best that can be said about the extrinsic evidence is that 

it is incomplete, insofar as it does not indicate whether water remained in 

Jemison’s cell when he was removed to the yard, or whether Jemison had injuries 

to his torso when he was examined by the nurse after being recovered from the 

yard. As such, the extrinsic evidence can be read to support both Jemison’s and 

the Defendants’ accounts, thus creating the “classic credibility fight between the 

two sides” identified by the district court. The district court’s resolution of this 

credibility fight in the Defendants’ favor was based upon the witnesses’ “body 

language [on] the stand, eye contact during questions, . . . mannerisms while 

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 11 of 12 
12

testifying, and . . . what may or may not be perceived inconsistencies between the 

stories or within the stories.” 

We are hard-pressed to second-guess the district court’s decisions to credit 

the Defendants’ version of events, and to discredit Jemison’s. See Anderson, 470 

U.S. at 575, 105 S. Ct. at 1512. On this record we simply cannot say that the trial

court clearly erred in determining that water remained in Jemison’s cell when the 

Defendants removed him to exercise yard A, and that he was not beaten while he 

was there.7

 O’Ferrell, 253 F.3d at 1265. Thus, reviewed de novo, the evidence 

was sufficient to support the judgment for the Defendants. Id.

III.CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Jemison’s request for injunctive relief pending the outcome of this appeal is 

DENIED AS MOOT.

AFFIRMED.

 7

 Neither are we persuaded by Jemison’s assertion that the district court’s “fail[ure] to issue a 

determination as to how [he] received his injuries,” standing alone, constitutes reversible error. 

First, such a finding was not necessary to the conclusion that the Defendants did not attack 

Jemison in the yard. Second, the only documented injuries in the record are the bruises around 

Jemison’s wrists and ankles, and the swelling under his right eye. As stated, Captain Simmons 

provided a plausible explanation for the source of these injuries upon questioning by Jemison,

and no extrinsic evidence contradicted this testimony.

Case: 12-14763 Date Filed: 05/16/2013 Page: 12 of 12