Opinion ID: 811139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Poccia

Text: Likewise, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Poccia. As in Colon’s case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Muhammad, Poccia applied force to Muhammad because he declined to shave. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Poccia was authorized to use force to enforce the prison’s shaving policy. Despite Muhammad’s testimony in his affidavit that, just before Poccia applied force, he told Poccia he was willing to shave, Muhammad presented no other evidence to support his assertion that he articulated a willingness to shave, and thus, his affidavit constituted only a “scintilla” of evidence supporting that position. Brooks v. County Com’n of Jefferson County, Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 2006). Although some evidence suggested Poccia stated, “eww that looks painful,” and that Muhammad had not “learned his lesson” while Muhammad was being sprayed with chemicals, that evidence, without more, does not demonstrate Poccia ordered the use of chemical spray maliciously or sadistically. Muhammad admitted Poccia was not laughing when he made those comments. The district court reasonably concluded Poccia was merely stating facts and not “taunting” 8 Case: 10-15381 Date Filed: 11/01/2012 Page: 9 of 12 Muhammad. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrated that Poccia, like Colon, did not have control over the water temperature in the shower. Overall, Muhammad failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut Poccia’s showing that he did not apply force maliciously or sadistically. Therefore, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Poccia.