NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0255n.06 F ile: April 12, 2006 No. 05-1009 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
ADRI AN CARL TON, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. P. TURNER, Corrections Off icer , et al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s, M. J OHNSON, Corr ections Off icer , De fe nd ant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : K EN

NE DY , M OO RE a

nd SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Proce eding pro se, Adrian Carlton challeng es t he district cour t’s
re je c tio n o f h is § 19 83 c la ims a g a ins t se ve ra l e mpl oy e e s o f t he Mic hig an D e pa

rtme nt o f C or

re c tio ns . Be cause Carlton has shown that materia l f actua l disputes prec lude the entry of summary judgme nt ag ainst him with respect to his Eig hth A mendment claim for improper use of for ce a

nd with respec t to m os t of

his re late d c la ims , w e re ve rs e in p art and a ff ir m in pa rt
.No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 2 - I.
An i nmate at the Bara g a Maximum Correc tional Fac ility in Michiga

n, Carlton witnessed two
corr ections off

icer s assault another

prisoner on Ma

y 17, 2003. Twelve day s later, two c orre ctions office rs, P. Turner

and R. Ekdahl, re moved Carlton from his cell and took him to the office of the Resident Unit Manag er, W. J ondrea u. Carlton Aff. at 2 (J uly

6, 2004) (D. Ct. Docket No. 74). Af ter the offic ers seated him in a chair and handcuf fed his arms behind his back, they asked him what had ha pp e ne d o n M ay

17 . Co mpl . at 3 (Jan. 7, 20 04 ) (D . Ct. Doc ke t No. 1) ; Ca rl ton B r. in O pp . to Mo t. for Dismissal and Summ. J . at 1–2, 14 (June 29, 2004) (D. Ct. Docke t No. 68). When Carlton beg an to relate his acc ount of the assa ult, Turner “ struck [him] violently [on] the bac k of t h e hea d.” Carlton Br . in Opp. at 7. And whe n he tried to g ive his a ccount of the incident a se cond time, Turne r
a g a in s tr u c k h im , “ th is ti me w it

h g r e a te r f

o r c e , ” c a u s in g Ca r lt o n“ to a lm o s t f

a ll in to th e d e s k

o f [ ] J ondrea u.” Id . The sec ond time, Carlton claims, “Turne r had ke y s in his hands,” and whe n Turner str uc k h im, “ so me pa

rt of the ke y s in

jur e d [Ca rl ton ’s ] he a d” by

“ c ut[i ng ] an d/o r b us t[in g ] a s ma ll hole” in his hea d , ca using him to bleed. Id . at 16. The othe r off icer s in the room, Ekdahl and J ondrea u, “both . . . fa iled to stop” Turner from assa

ulting him, Carlton alleg es. Carlton Aff. at 2. Carl ton wa s so “ fr ig hte n[e d]” by the se a tta c ks that “ a ft e r b e ingins tr uc te d b y [ ] J on dr e a

u to wr ite a stateme nt favora

ble to the offic ers, [Carlton] offer[ed] to give the state ment in the form of a sworn aff idavit and thereaf

t er h e wa s i nstructed to bac k date the statement to the date of the incident.” Carlton Br . in Opp. at 2.No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 3 - After the incident, Carlton “a sked for medical attention” for his injury “and g ot no t hing.” Id
. at 16. He concede s, howeve r, t hat he “did not sustain a serious injury ,” ac knowledg ing that the injury was “ minor.” Id
. Ca rl to n later

ma de an a dd iti on a l st a te me nt o n b e ha lf of the of fi c e rs , o ne that ( he a lle g e s) Hea ring Investig ator Stephen Ray mond relea sed to the prisoner involved in the May 17 incident, an inmate named Jones. Compl. at 4. W hen Jones’ sister rec eived a copy of the stateme nt, she offe red to pay Carlton to withdraw it and thre atene d to harm him if he did not. Id
. I n the af termath of these incidents, Carlton filed a pro se § 1983 a ction in fede ral c ourt ag ainst Turner , Ekdal, Jondreau and Ray mond, alleg ing that they

had violated his F irst, Eighth a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt r ig hts . T he de fe nd ants c on ceded th at Car lto n h a d e xha us te d h is administrative re medies. See Def
. Br
. in Supp. of Mot. f

or Dismissal and Summ. J . at 3–4 (June 22, 20 04 ) ( D. Ct. Do c ke t N o. 60 ) ( “ De pa rtme nt r e c or ds sh ow that he fi le d thre e g ri e va

nc e s o n th e se issues and took ea ch one to the third step.”). But they denied that any of these e vents took place and
acc ording ly

moved to dismiss the complaint or in the a lternative f or summary

judgme nt.
T h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtg r an td e f e n d a n t s ’ s u m m ar

yjudgme nt motion. Over Carlton’s objec tions, the district c ourt adopted the mag istrate judg e’s r eport and re commendation. Carlton appea led. Ex pressinga belief that “the issues in this pro se appe al
are without merit,” the State of Michig an chose not to submi t an appe llate brief to th i s court on behalf of the de fenda

nts. L etter f

rom L inda M. Olivieri (Jan. 21, 2005).No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 4 - II.
Our standa

rd of r eview in this setting is fa miliar. We give fre sh revie w to the district court’s g rant of summary

judgme nt, Harbin-Bey

v. Rutter , 420 F.3d 571, 575 ( 6th Cir. 2005); we “c onstrue
a ll r e a s o n a

b le in f e r e n c e s in

f a v o r o f th e n o n mo v in g p arty ,” id. ; an d we will af firm the g rant of
summa ry jud g me nt if “ no g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t” e xists “ and

the mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law,” id
. I t is a “settled rule” that “the unnecessa ry and wanton infliction of pain constitut es cr uel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eig hth Amendment.” Hudson v. Mc Millian , 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) ( internal quotatio n m ar k s and ellipses omitted). “What is nece ssary to establish an
unnece ssary and wanton infliction of pain,” howe ver, “ varie s acc ording to the nature of the a lleg ed constitutional viol ation,” id. (interna l quotation marks omitted), “for two rea sons,” id . at 8. “ F ir st, the g ener al re quirement that an Eig hth Amendment claimant a lleg e and pr ove the unne cessa ry and wanton infliction of pain should be a pplied with due re g ard f

or diffe renc es in the kind of con d uct ag ainst which an Eig hth Amendment objection is lodge d.” Id. (interna l quotation marks, ellipses and bra ckets omitted). “Sec ond, the Eig hth Amendment’s prohibition o f cr u el and unusual punishments draws its meaningfrom the e volving st an d ar d s of dec ency that mark the pr og ress of a maturingsociety , and so admits of fe w absolute limitations.” Id . ( int erna l qu ot a tio n ma rk s, ellipses and bra ckets omitted).No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 5 - “[W ]henever pr ison officials stand a ccuse d of usingexcessive phy sical force in viol ation of the Cruel and U nusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry ” is “whe ther for ce w as applied in a g ood-fa ith e ffor

t to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically

to cause harm.” Id . at 6– 7. “ Whe n p ri so n off ici a ls m a lic iou sly

and sa dis tic a lly

us e fo rc e to c a

us e ha rm , c on te mpo ra

ry sta nd ard s o f d e c e nc y

a lw ay s are vio late d, ” “ wh e the r o r n ot s ig nif ic ant i nju ry is evident.” Id . at 9; se e als o id . (“O therwise, the Eig hth Amendment would per mit any phy sical punishment, no matter how diabolic or i n h u m an , i n fl icting le ss than some arbitra ry quantity of injury
. Such a re sult would have bee n as unac cepta ble to the dra fters of

the Eig hth Amendment as it is t oday .”). Viewingthe fa cts in the light most favor able to Carlton, they prese nt a picture of
unacc eptable c onduct. Th e o ff i cers assaulted him twice f or re lating what he ha d seen dur ing a n
a lte rc a tio n b e tw e e n pri so n guards and ano the r i nmate , a

pp are ntl y in a n e ff or t to ind uc e him to chang e his story

to coincide with the guards’ version of events. Seated and handcuf fed, in a room with no other inmates and with thr ee prison officia ls pr esent, Carlton could not ha ve posed a thre at to the office rs’ (or any one else’s) safe ty
. Whil e not “ ever y malevolent touch by

a prison guard g ives rise to a f eder al ca use of a ction,” id ., and while “ demi nim is uses of phy sical forc e” do not support a cog nizable Eighth Ame ndment claim, id
. a t 1 0 , t h a t i s n o t a l l t h a t h a p p e n e d h e r e . A c c o r d i ng to Carlton’s alleg ations , t h e plural assa ults drew blood, and eve n if the re sulting injury was “ minor” ( a s C ar l t o na c kn o w l e d g e s ) , t h a tf a c td o e s n o tp r e c l u d e h i mf r o m s t a t i n g a

c o g n i z a b l e Ei g hth Amendment cla im in all setti ng s. See Thaddeus-X v. Love , No. 98-2211, 2000 WL 712354, at *2No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 6 - (6th Cir. May

22, 2000) (“ Whil e a demi nim is use of f orce will not support an ac t i onable c laim, a plaintiff may

rec over e ven if he suffe rs only minor injury .”) (citation omitted); Moore v . Holbrook , 2 F .3 d 6 97 , 700 –0 1 (6t h Ci r. 19 93 ) ( c on c lud ingthat if an inmate ’s c la ims that “ he wa s sa va g e ly beate n on three occa sions by the defe ndants for no rea son” are true, “[u] nder the Hudson and W hitley [ v . A lbe rs , 4 7 5 U. S
. 312 (1986)] do c tr ine s, [his ] ev ide nc e wo uld a pp e ar t o s ho w that de fe nd ants
a c te d in ba d f a ith ” even if hi s injur ie s— “ he c omp la ine d o f s or e ne ss t o h is w ri sts , und e ra rm s, shoulders, and g roin, and that he had an ‘ edema ’ on his fore head, a nd that he did not dislocate or f r a c tu r e h i s r i g h ts h o u l d e r ”

— w e r e o n l y “ demi nim is for pur poses of Eig hth Amendment ana ly sis”) ( in te r n a l quotation marks omitted); Kry lin g v . S e als c ott , No
. 9 8 -3 4 7 0 , 1 9 9 9 U. S
. Ap p . L E XI S 20322, at *4 (6th Cir. Aug . 17, 1999) (“ A demi nim is use of forc e will not support an ac tionable claim, but a plaintiff may

rec over e ven if he suffe rs only minor injury .”) ( citations omitt ed).
What ma k e s th is in

ju r y an d c la im c o g n iz a b le u n d e r th e E ig h th

A me n dme n t i s th a t t

he office rs provided no le g itimate explanation for usingforc e. While we will excuse exercises of forc e “applied in a

g ood-fa ith effor

t to maintain or restore discipline,” Hudson , 503 U.S. at 7, the offic ers did not provide any

justification for their c onduct, see Mo or e , 2 F.3d at 700 (“To de termine whe ther a cla im of assault rises to a level of c onstitut ional mag nitude, a cour t must consider the re asons or mot ivatio n f

or the c on du c t, t

he ty pe of for c e us e d, and

the e xten t of

the inf lic te d in jur y .” ); id. (holding that if officia ls assaulted a n inmate “f

or no re ason,” the evidenc e “w ould appea r to show that defe ndants ac ted in bad fa ith” in violation of Hudson ); Al-Bari v. Guider , No. 96-6707, 1998 U. S. App . L EX I S 29 47 , at *7 –8 (6 th C ir . F e b. 19 , 1 99 8) (h old ingtha t in mate ’s “ ve rs ion

of the fa c tsNo. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 7 - supports a cla im that defenda nt violated his Eighth Am en d m en t rig hts” bec ause “ defe ndant used fo rc e to i nf

lic t pa in on pla int if

f, no t to ma int a in o r r e sto re or de r” ); Thaddeus-X , 2000 WL 712354, at *2 (“ Abra sions, pain, and swelling . . . may be sufficient injury to support an Eig hth Amendment claim wher e, as here , there are g enuine fac t issues conce rning the ca use of plaintiff’ s injury

and the ju stifi c a tio n f

or , a nd the re a so na

ble ne ss o f, any

fo rc e a pp lie d b y de fe nd ant. ” ); Kryling , 1 99 9 U .S. App. L EXI S 20322, at *4 (holding that beca use the inmate “ wore restra ints and posed no phy sical thr e a t to ” th e guard whe n h e a ssa ult e d th e inm a te , th e inm a te ha d s tate d a c og niza ble Ei g hth Amendment cla im).
The c ritical question in this case is what happe ned: In other wor ds, are Carlton’s alleg ations t r u e o r f a l s e ? If w h a t C ar l t o n s ay s i s t r

u e , h e h a s s t a t e d a c o g n i z a b l e E i g h t h A m e n dm e n tc l a i m . If not, the cl ai m ev ap orate s. Given that the c laim rises or fa lls based on a c redibility assessment of wh a t ha pp e ne d d ur ing thi s con fr on tatio n an d g ive n the fe w fa c ts a nd arg ume nts be fo re us , th e c a se should go to a

fac tfinder to dete rmine who is telling the truth.
Four other point s deser

ve attention. First, in the af termath of Hudson , a 1992 dec ision by the S up re me Court

and the pr inc ipa l de c isi on

up on wh ic h w e re ly

tod ay , th e de fe nd ants c ann ot c la im that th ey ar e en t i t led to qualified immunity beca use if Carlton’s a lleg ations are true, the of fice rs violated clea

rly established constitutional rig hts. S e e H a r l o w v . F

i t z g e r ald , 4 57 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).No. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 8 - Second, to the extent Carlton’s pro se brief mea ns to raise discove ry -re lated objec tions to t he dispositi on of his claim below, we note that he may seek discove ry

upon rema

nd. Third, i n addition to the excessive-for ce Eig hth A mendment claim ar ising fr om the alleg ed assaults, Carlton asser

ts severa l other re lated constitutional claims stemming fr om the May 29 incident. He claims that J ondrea u and Ekda

hl exhi bited deliberate indiffer ence to his constitut ional rig hts when they

did not stop Turner fr om assaulting h i m , Compl. at 2; t hat J ondrea u, Turner and Ek da hl r e ta liate d a g a ins t hi m w he n they a ssa ult e d h im f

or e xer c isi nghis F ir st A me ndme nt r ig hts (whe n he tried to tell the truth about t h e M ay 1 7 i n ci dent), Car lton Br. in Opp. at 19–20; and that Jond re a u, Turner and Ek dahl c on sp ir e d to c ov e r u p b oth the May 17 inc ide nt ( by

fo rc inghim

to make a false s tate me n t o nth e ir b e h a lf ) an d th e c o v e r - u

p it s e lf ( b y ly in g an d a s s e rti n g th a t w hat Carlton alleg es happe ned on May 29 never did happen) , Compl. at 3, 6. B eca use it appea

rs from the thi n r e c or d w e have be fo re us that th e se oth e r c la ims ri se or fa ll b a se d o n th e same fa c tua l di sp ute that underlies the E ighth Ame ndment as s au l t cl aim , they too deserve to be consider ed by the fac tfinder or

at least de serve further

consideration by

the district court. Finally , Carlton independe ntly claims that Ray

mond re t ali ated a g ainst him, ex hibited deliberate indiffer ence and subjec ted him to threats and r isk of harm from other inmate s by rele asing his confidential stateme nt to prisoner J ones, which cause d Carlton to be labele d a “snitch” among his f ellow inmates. Id. at 4, 7. In contra st to the above c laims, Carlton has not provided anynonhe ars ay e vid e nc e to s up po rt

thi s c la im, ha s n ot co ntr a dic te d Ra y mon d’ s a ff

ida vit that Ra y mon d d idNo. 05-1009

Carlton v. Johnson

- 9 - not relea se the c onfidential information, and has not soug ht evidence to suppor t this claim. Under these c ircumstance s, the district court prope rly dismiss ed Carlton’s c laim ag ainst Ray mond.
III
. For these re asons, we r ever se in part a nd aff irm in part, and we rema

nd the ca se for

further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.