The Honor able John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by designation. 06-5139-pr Edwards v. Tarascio
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U LI N GS B Y SU M M A R Y O R D ER D O N O T H A V E P R ECED ENTI A L EF FEC T. C I TATI O N TO A S U M M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y F EDER A L R U LE O F AP PELLA TE PR OCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S COURT ’ S L OCAL RUL E 3 2 . 1. 1. W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A DOCUM E N T F I L E D W I T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE ( W I TH TH E NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 9 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, R E EN ARA G G I,

Circuit Judges , J O HNG
. K O E LT L, *

District Judge
.

_______________________________________________ M I CH A EL E DW AR DS , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 06-5139-pr J OHN T A R A SC IO , S A U N D RY , C A P T A IN , I/O, O F F I CE R B OL GER , I/O, O F F I CE R M UL L I GAN , I/O, O F F I CE R S ANDY , I/O, C A RL L E W IS , I/O, O F F I CE R P A RA D I SE , I/O, Defendants-A ppellees
.

_______________________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: Michae l Edwards, pro s e , Gar ner Corr ectional F a c ili ty , Su ff

ie ld, CT2

For Def endants-A

ppellees: Ly nn D. Witt enbrink, Esq., Attorne y Gene ral’s Of fi c e , St ate of

Conne c tic ut, Ha

rt fo rd , CT Appea l from the United States District Court for the District of Connec ticut (Smit h, M.J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he Di stric t Co ur

t be and he re by is AF F IRM ED
. Appellant Micha el Edwa

rds appe als the district court’ s judgme nt following a jury verdic t fo r t he de fe nd ants . H e ha s a lso fi le d a “ Mo tio n f

or Re lie f o n Pl e a din g s f

or De nia l of Ac c e ss t o Court,” and a

“Motion RequestingCourt of Appea ls to Reverse Judgment.” We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the fac ts, procee dings be low, and spec ification of a ppellate issues, a

nd ho ld a s f oll ow s. Insofar as Edwa rds’s cla im that his constitutional rig hts were violated when he was sexually assaulted dur ing the body cavity sear ch ca n be construe d as cha lleng ing the sufficie ncy of the e vidence at trial, that cla im is wit hout merit. In revie wingthe suffic iency of the e vidence in support of a jury

verdic t, this C ourt “e x amine[s] the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the party in whose favor the jury

decide d, draw ing a ll reasona ble infer ence s in the winning pa rty ’s favor .” Gronowski v. Spenc er , 4 24 F .3 d 2 85 , 2 91 (2 d Ci r. 20 05 ). “ In s o d oin g , [th e Court ]
c ann ot w e igh c on fl ic tin ge vid e nc e , d e te rm ine the c re dib ili ty of wi tne sse s, or

su bs tit ute [its] judgme nt for that of the jury .” Id. at 29 2. Th is C ourt “ wi ll o ve rt

ur n a ve rd ic t on ly

if the re is
su c h a c omp le te a

bs e nc e of e vid e nc e su

pp or tin gthe ve rd ic t th at th e jur y ’s fi nd ing s c ou ld o nly have be en the r esult of shee r surmise and c onjecture , or such a n overwhelming a

mount of
e vid e nc e in f

avo r o f t he [ap pe lla

nt] that r e a so na

ble and fa ir min de d me n c ou ld n ot a

rrive at a verdic t ag ainst [t he appe llant] .” Id. (interna l quotation omit ted). He re, the trial testimony3

constitutes sufficient e vidence to support a findingthat defe ndants did not violate Edwar ds’s constitutional rights bec ause de fenda nts eac h testified that no sexual assault took place, a nd the videotape of

the incident did not demonstrate that any sexual assault had occ urre d. The
cre dibilit y

of the de fenda

nts’ testimony

and the videota

pe wa s an issue for

the jury and ca nnot be deter mined by this Court. See Gronowski , 424 F.3d at 292. Accor dingly , there is no basis on wh ic h to c ha lle ng e the jur y ve rd ic t. As fo r E dw ard s’ s c la im that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y tha t a violation of the Depa

rtment of Corre ction’s interna l directives wa s not tantamount to a violation of plaintiff’s c onstitut ional rights, the claim is subject to the plain err or standar d wher e, as he re, plaintiff did not object to the instruction. SeeF e d. R. C iv. P. 5 1( d) ; see also Shah v. Pan Am. W orld Servs., Inc

. , 148 F.3d 84, 96 ( 2d Cir. 1998) (apply ing pla in error

revie w to jury ins tr uc tio ns to whic h d e fe nd ant d id n ot o bje c t) . F ar f ro m be ingpla in e rr or , th e c la im mus t f a il beca use the instruction wa s a cor rec t statement of law. T he violation of a prison regulation does not automatically

establish that all the eleme nts of an Eighth Amendment violation have be en satisfied. Thus, the district cour t did not mi sapply

the law in its jury

instruction. Next, Edwards’s c laim that defe ndants inflicted cr uel and unusua l punishment by
c on du c tin gan unc on sti tut ion a l vi su a l bo dy c avit y se arc h n ot w ith in d e pa

rtme nt d ir e c tiv e s is simil arly unavailing . Insofar

as his claim is based on the f act that the se arc h was not conta ined within department dire ctives, it is without m erit. Insofar as the c laim can be construed a s an excessive forc e cla im separately premised on a

violation of the Eig hth Amendment’s prohibition
on c ru e l and unus ua l pu

nis hme nt, it i s a lso wi tho ut m e ri t. T he Ei g hth Am e ndme nt p ro hib its “cr uel and unusua l punishments,” which includes the “ ‘unnec essar y and wa nton infliction of pain.’” Griffin v. Cri

ppen , 1 9 3 F. 3 d

8 9 , 9 1 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Gre

gg v . G e or gia , 4 28 U. S.4

153, 173 (1976)) . For

excessive forc e cla ims, “the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether f

orce was
a pp lie d in a g oo d- fa ithe ff

or t to ma int a in o r r e sto re dis c ipl ine , o r m a lic iou sly and sa dis tic a lly

to
cause harm.” Hudson v. Mc Millian , 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). Howe ver, the cre dibilit y of defe ndants’ testimony

that no sexual assault took place, a nd their prof

fer ed videotape of the inc ide nt r e futin gEd

wa rd s’ s c la ims , w a s a

n is su e fo r t

he jur y and c ann ot b e de te rm ine d b y thi s Court. See Gronowski , 424 F.3d at 292. Finally , Edwar ds’s argument that defe ndants committed perjury at trial whe n they

stated that Edwar ds was the only inmate who re sisted the strip searc h is without m erit. While severa l witnesses testified that in their e x perie nce the y had not had other

inmates ref

use the sea

rch, Edwar ds has not provided a ny evidenc e, nor a lleg ed any fac ts, to support his contention. T h e j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED and the pe nding motions are DI SM ISSED a s mo ot. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk