Opinion ID: 595746
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: To the officer.

Text: 8 And Officer Pope and Sergeant Miller and Officer Christopher took me around to the medic and the doctor seen me and gave me some pain medicine and some cold compresses for the swelling in my head, and they sent me back to the cell and that was--that's what happened. 9 Coleman's testimony is generally corroborated by the testimony of two other inmates. 10 One of the defendants, Officer Edward Christopher, stated that he and another officer were approached by an inmate who told them that he had been beaten. Christopher indicated that the other inmates may have thought that this inmate was an informant. The officers investigated and found five or six inmates fighting with one another. They ordered them to return to their cells but the inmates refused and continued fighting. Christopher said that he and the other guards used reasonable force to return the inmates to their cells. He specifically denied Coleman's version of the incident. Christopher's testimony is indirectly supported by the testimony of two other guards. 11 The district court is primarily responsible for determining the credibility of these witnesses. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The court's factual findings should not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Id. at 574. Even greater deference is required when credibility is at issue and the trial court has had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Id. at 575. It was not clearly erroneous for the court to credit Officer Christopher's testimony over Coleman's. Coleman argues that Christopher's testimony was contradicted by an incident report and also by the defendants' answer to the complaint. However, the alleged discrepancies do not contradict the crux of Christopher's testimony. 12 Coleman next argues that the district court should have applied the holding in Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). He also argues that the court erroneously treated his case as though it were a suit for the denial of medical treatment. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim may exist when prison guards maliciously use excessive force, even if a prisoner is not seriously injured. However, the district court did not base its decision on a finding that Coleman was not seriously injured. It is also clear that the district court properly analyzed Coleman's excessive force claim. 13 Finally, Coleman argues that the court made several procedural and evidentiary errors in his case. In particular, he argues that the court failed to rule on his request for a subpoena duces tecum, that the court failed to grant his motion for appointment of counsel, that the court allowed the defense to elicit hearsay testimony, and that he was denied his right to examine the defendants who were not present at trial. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in these matters. 14 Accordingly, Coleman's request for counsel is denied and the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.