Court Opinion

ID: 9375963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:00:34.976384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.215782
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-10819   Document: 53-1    Date Filed: 03/01/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 21-10819
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       CHARLES LAWN,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
       OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
       SGT. SCHUTHIESS,
       Martin C.I.,
       OFFICER HARVEY,
USCA11 Case: 21-10819     Document: 53-1      Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-10819

       Martin C.I.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-14249-RLR
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and BRASHER,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Charles Lawn, a Florida prisoner, appeals the summary
       judgment in favor of two correctional officers, Sergeant Schultheiss
       and Officer Harvey, and against Lawn’s complaint that they used
       excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment when re-
       straining Lawn while he was having a seizure. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
       The district court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified
       immunity because the undisputed record established that the offic-
       ers, acting within their discretionary authority, restrained Lawn be-
       cause they perceived he was under the influence of drugs and that
       the force they used was not applied maliciously or sadistically to
       cause harm. We affirm.
USCA11 Case: 21-10819     Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       21-10819               Opinion of the Court                       3

                               I. BACKGROUND
              For decades, Lawn has experienced seizures due to a trau-
       matic brain injury. On July 9, 2015, Lawn was in his cell when he
       began to experience one of these seizures and informed his cell-
       mate, who called for help. When Sergeant Schultheiss and Officer
       Harvey arrived with other prison and medical staff, Lawn was con-
       vulsing on the floor. Lawn was transported to the prison medical
       unit, where his medical record listed “drug abuse” as the chief com-
       plaint and noted that Lawn appeared confused and delirious, his
       pupils were dilated, and he was “physically combative.” An x-ray
       revealed that Lawn’s right shoulder was dislocated and his right
       arm was fractured.
              Lawn later filed a complaint against Sergeant “Schuthiess”
       and Officer Harvey. Lawn alleged that, instead of assisting him, the
       officers “began to kick, stomp, punch and curse him” before trans-
       porting him to the medical unit, where the officers continued to
       beat and curse him. Lawn alleged that the officers used excessive
       force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
              In his first deposition, Lawn denied that the officers ever
       punched or kicked him. Lawn testified that after he began seizing
       and “flopping around like a fish,” the officers “jumped” on him and
       held him down using their arms to immobilize his neck. Lawn re-
       called hearing the officers ask him if he was high and what he had
       been smoking. Lawn believed that the officers “thought [he] was
       on drugs at the time,” and “jumped down on [him], instead, think-
       ing that [he] was trying to be [] unruly, and that [he] was high.”
USCA11 Case: 21-10819     Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023   Page: 4 of 9

       4                     Opinion of the Court                21-10819

       Lawn stated that the officers rolled him onto his stomach, hand-
       cuffed him, and placed him on a gurney. When he woke up in the
       medical unit, the captain told Lawn that “Schultheiss and the other
       officer had to jump down on you . . . because they thought you
       were high.” When Lawn explained to the captain that he was not
       on drugs but had experienced a seizure, the captain instructed that
       Lawn be uncuffed.
              Two years later, after the district court denied Sergeant
       Schultheiss’s motion for summary judgment, Lawn was deposed
       again. Lawn maintained his previous assertions and added that the
       drug “K2” was “everywhere.” Lawn had seen officers try to control
       inmates who were high on K2 by trying to “talk the [inmate]
       down,” but if that did not work, the officers had “to grab them,”
       cuff them, and put them on a gurney. During his seizure, Lawn
       recalled hearing the officers asking what he “was on” and hearing
       “some of the other inmates telling them that [he] was taking a sei-
       zure.” Lawn acknowledged that if he had been high and unable
       control himself, the proper way to restrain him would be to take
       him down. Lawn explained that he ordinarily wore a pass in his left
       pocket that stated “SZ precautions,” meaning that he could not be
       around certain items and chemicals due to his seizures. Lawn never
       had any problems with Sergeant Schultheiss or Officer Harvey be-
       fore the incident.
              Officer Harvey moved for summary judgment, and Ser-
       geant Schultheiss moved for reconsideration because of the addi-
       tional discovery that had occurred since he filed his motion for
USCA11 Case: 21-10819      Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       21-10819               Opinion of the Court                         5

       summary judgment two years earlier. The officers submitted dec-
       larations averring they had no independent recollection of the inci-
       dent and never used excessive force on Lawn. Both officers de-
       scribed their encounters with inmates who had ingested K2, which
       involved screaming, twitching, shaking, and fighting. When the of-
       ficers encountered an inmate who appeared to be under the influ-
       ence of drugs, they would try to calm the inmate down. But if the
       inmate did not respond to commands or was combative, the offic-
       ers had to secure the inmate with handcuffs so that medical staff
       could respond safely. Inmates would sometimes misstate what was
       happening or lie to create a diversion, so correctional officers could
       never be certain about what was happening.
              The district court granted the officers summary judgment.
       The district court ruled that there was no evidence that the officers
       used force against Lawn maliciously and sadistically for the pur-
       pose of causing him harm. Instead, the district court ruled, the ev-
       idence established that the officers used force to gain control of
       Lawn while he was experiencing what appeared to be a drug high
       so he could be transported to the medical unit. The district court
       further ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity
       because they were acting within their discretionary authority while
       supervising inmates and maintaining safety and security.
                          II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
              We review de novo a summary judgment. See Underwood
       v. City of Bessemer, 11 F.4th 1317, 1327 (11th Cir. 2021). And “[w]e
       review de novo whether . . . officers are entitled to immunity.”
USCA11 Case: 21-10819      Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 21-10819

       Black v. Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1265 (11th Cir. 2016). We re-
       solve any issues of material fact in Lawn’s favor and then address
       the legal question of whether the officers are entitled to qualified
       immunity using that version of the facts. See Penley v. Eslinger,
       605 F.3d 843, 848-49 (11th Cir. 2010).
                                III. DISCUSSION
              Lawn argues that the officers violated the Eighth Amend-
       ment by using excessive force against him. Lawn contends that the
       officers acted maliciously and sadistically when they jumped on
       him and beat him for no reason after other inmates told the officers
       that Lawn was not on drugs. We disagree.
              Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, if the officers es-
       tablish that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary
       authority when the alleged excessive force occurred, Lawn must
       prove both that a constitutional violation occurred and that the
       constitutional right violated was clearly established. Williams v.
       Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147, 1156 (11th Cir. 2020). And “[f]or claims of
       excessive force in violation of the Eighth . . . Amendment[], . . . a
       plaintiff can overcome a defense of qualified immunity by showing
       only the first prong.” Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1216-17
       (11th Cir. 2009); see Patel v. Lanier Cnty., 969 F.3d 1173, 1186 (11th
       Cir. 2020) (holding that the Fennell “exception continues to apply
       to Eighth Amendment claims”).
             Because Lawn did not dispute that the officers were acting
       within their discretionary authority until his reply brief, that issue
USCA11 Case: 21-10819      Document: 53-1     Date Filed: 03/01/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       21-10819               Opinion of the Court                         7

       is not properly before us. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739
       F.3d 678, 681, 683 (11th Cir. 2014). This appeal turns on whether
       Lawn proved that the officers are not entitled to qualified immun-
       ity. See Williams, 965 F.3d at 1156-57. He has not.
               The “core judicial inquiry” in excessive force cases, under
       the Eighth Amendment, is “not whether a certain quantum of in-
       jury was sustained, but rather whether force was applied in a
       good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously
       and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37
       (2010) (quotation marks omitted). To determine whether the force
       was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, we consider
       the need for the application of force, the relationship between the
       need and the amount of force that was used, the extent of the injury
       inflicted upon the prisoner, the extent of the threat to the safety of
       staff and inmates, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a
       forceful response. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.
       2007). When considering these factors, “we must also give a wide
       range of deference to prison officials acting to preserve discipline
       and security, including when considering decisions made at the
       scene of a disturbance.” Sears v. Roberts, 922 F.3d 1199, 1205 (11th
       Cir. 2019).
              Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lawn,
       no reasonable jury could find that the force used was “not applied
       in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline” but instead
       applied “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins, 559
       U.S. at 37. Lawn’s testimony alone is sufficient to prove that the
USCA11 Case: 21-10819     Document: 53-1      Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                21-10819

       officers’ actions of jumping on him, restraining him, and handcuff-
       ing him was a result of their honest but mistaken belief that he was
       convulsing and being “unruly” due to a drug high. And the amount
       of force appeared to be reasonably necessary as Lawn testified that
       he was “flopping around like a fish.” It is also undisputed that the
       officers’ reason for restraining and cuffing Lawn was to transport
       him for medical treatment. See Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1312.
               The undisputed evidence also establishes that, from the of-
       ficers’ perspective and their experience with inmates’ rampant drug
       use, Lawn posed a security threat and needed to be restrained. Alt-
       hough the officers reported no recollection of the incident and
       Lawn testified that he had blacked out for parts of it, his medical
       records reflected that he was confused, delirious, and “physically
       combative.” And our conclusion is unaffected by whether the of-
       ficers were told, as Lawn alleged they were, that he was experienc-
       ing a seizure and not a drug high. Maintaining “safety and order at
       [corrections facilities] requires the expertise of correctional offi-
       cials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable so-
       lutions to the problems they face.” Ireland v. Prummell, 53 F.4th
       1274, 1299 (11th Cir. 2022) (alteration in original).
              Lawn argues that the officers should have tempered the
       amount of force used. But the infliction of pain “does not amount
       to cruel and unusual punishment simply because it may appear in
       retrospect that the degree of force authorized or applied for secu-
       rity purposes was unreasonable, and hence unnecessary in the strict
       sense.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Because the
USCA11 Case: 21-10819     Document: 53-1      Date Filed: 03/01/2023    Page: 9 of 9

       21-10819               Opinion of the Court                        9

       evidence, construed in Lawn’s favor, does not establish that the of-
       ficers committed a constitutional violation, the district court did
       not err in granting them qualified immunity.
              Lawn argues too that the district court erred in allowing Ser-
       geant Schultheiss to file a successive motion for summary judg-
       ment, but we discern no error. Although Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
       cedure 56 is silent regarding whether a party may file a successive
       motion for summary judgment, we have recognized that a succes-
       sive motion for summary judgment may be permitted when good
       cause exists, such as when discovery has been extended. Fernandez
       v. Bankers Nat. Life Ins. Co., 906 F.2d 559, 569 (11th Cir. 1990).
       Because Lawn’s allegations against the two officers were identical
       and the factual record had been further developed, the district
       court identified good cause to permit Sergeant Schultheiss to file a
       second motion for summary judgment.
                               IV. CONCLUSION
             We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Sergeant
       Schultheiss and Officer Harvey.