Opinion ID: 593655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 On October 13, 1985, Ronald Paul Clark, a citizen of Canada, was incarcerated in the Whatcom County jail in Bellingham, Washington. Kraig Clay, a guard, entered the day room where Clark was watching television and informed Clark that he had visitors. In preparation for taking Clark to the visiting area, Clay shackled him by chaining his ankles together and handcuffing both of his hands to a body belt. 4 Clay left the room and some minutes later returned with another guard. Clark asked if he would have a hand free so that he would be able to use the phone in the visiting area, to which Clay responded that he would not. Clark stated that he would not go to the visiting room and asked to see a supervisor. At this juncture, according to Clark's deposition testimony, Clay became quite animated and told Clark he was going back to his cell. (Certified Record (C.R.) 114 Ex. A (Clark Dep.) at 44.) Clark, still wanting to see a supervisor, became frightened and sat down on a mattress in the corner of the room. 5 Clay again left the room and a short time later returned not with a supervisor but with three other guards, including the other individual defendant in this action, John McSwain. Clay removed his glasses, which Clark interpreted as a strong indicator of trouble and a sign that Clay was in a combative mode. (Id. at 51, 53). Clay took Clark's left arm and McSwain took his right arm; Clark heard one of the guards say, We're going to move you. (Id. at 58.) Clark stated at his deposition that after the guards took his arms he made no attempt to stand up, but rather adopted a passive demeanor, allowing his legs to be brought up freely. (Id. at 58-59). 6 The next thing Clark remembers is waking up on the concrete floor some six feet from where he was being lifted with his head in a pool of blood. As he came to, he heard McSwain repeating, I seen him do it, I seen him make the move. (Id. at 71.) According to Clark, these remarks may have been an attempt by McSwain to whitewash the guards' actions. Clark was taken to the emergency room, where he received 21 stitches for a crush type laceration on his upper forehead which exposed his skull for about three-eighths of an inch. (C.R. 125 Ex. 1 at 7.) He was released later that day. 7 The parties have different versions of the events in question. Clark does not know how he ended up on the floor, but stated at his deposition: 8 I know that I didn't jump up in the air and land on the floor. I know that. I know that I didn't step over to where I became conscious to get over to that area of the floor, I know that. I recall that I didn't try to walk anywhere, and when I woke up, I would have had to walk over there.... 9 (Id. at 62-63.) Clay, at his deposition, described the incident as follows: 10 When I grabbed [Clark]'s arm, pulled him up, he pulled back, didn't want to go, was resisting. I turned his arm around behind him. He was struggling at that time.... [A]ll of a sudden, it seemed to me his body relaxed, as if, okay, give up, or, whatever, and then down he went. 11 (Clay Dep. at 43-44.) 1 12 McSwain maintains that he does not recall how Clark ended up on the ground: 13 I know that I was helping him up in this manner, and [Clay] was helping him up in this manner, and then that he went over onto the ground, but I don't remember how he ended up on the ground. 14 .... 15 I think I still had a hold of his arm, but I don't remember--yeah, I think I still had a hold of his arm. 16 (McSwain Dep. at 41-42.) While Clay described Clark as agitated during the confrontation with guards, (C.R. 109 Ex. 2 (Clay Dep.) at 34), McSwain stated that Clark was not say[ing] anything, but [j]ust sitting there very tense, (id. Ex. 3 at 37). 17 The emergency room report reflects still other versions of the incident, noting that while Clark stated upon his arrival simply that he had fallen on the concrete, the deputies who brought him to the hospital told medical personnel that Clark had been involved in a struggle with deputies, was pushed and fell striking his head. (C.R. 2 Ex. B.) 18 On October 16, 1987, Clark filed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Clay had violated his civil rights by slamming/smashing [his] body & head into the [c]oncrete [f]loor. (Excerpts of Record (E.R.) at 2.) The original complaint sought damages of $2.8 million as well as out-of-pocket medical expenses and punitive damages. In September 1988 the court appointed counsel to represent Clark. 19 A first amended complaint was filed on April 26, 1989, which added McSwain and the county as defendants as well as a cause of action for negligence under Washington state law. It alleges jurisdiction of the negligence claim both on account of diversity and as a pendent state claim and damages in an amount to be proven at trial. (E.R. at 8.) The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge. 20 At a hearing on August 14, 1990, Magistrate Judge Sweigert orally granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the section 1983 claim and ordered further briefing on the issue of diversity. 2 On January 22, 1991 he issued an order dismissing the remaining negligence claim for lack of jurisdiction. The order states in pertinent part: 21 Assuming, arguendo, that defendants negligently dropped plaintiff causing a gash on his head, the record indicates he was treated as an outpatient at the hospital emergency room for two hours and released with no apparent residuals; x-rays were normal and the medical evidence indicates that plaintiff's present complaints of headaches are not in any way connected to trauma. Plaintiff can have no good faith claim for medical expenses or wages, past, present, or future, nor for diminished earning capacity. Plaintiff's only possible claim is for pain and suffering and on the record before the Court, such claim could not in good faith exceed $10,000 [the jurisdictional amount in effect when Clark filed his suit]. 22 (E.R. at 20.) Although the order is not explicit, the court apparently declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state negligence claim. Judgment was entered for defendants on January 22, 1991. Clark's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 30, 1991. This appeal followed.