Court Opinion

ID: 9366749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 20:02:40.956955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.916152
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATAN O. RODRIGUEZ,                      )
                                           )
            Plaintiff,                     )
                                           )      Case No.:     N20C-01-201 FJJ
      v.                                   )
CPL. EWEN P. CAHALL, LT. AMOS              )
CALLAWAY, CPL. ANDREW J.                   )
CASSIDY, C/O KATIE CLARK,                  )
C/O LUIS GOMEZ, SGT. DAVID                 )
HAMRICK, C/O DONALD HASTINGS,              )
CPL. EDWARD MADIGAN,                       )
CPL MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,                   )
C/O MICHAEL B. RUNNE, CPL MARK             )
SESSLER, C/O DAVID R. SEYMORE,             )
SGT. DONALD SMITH, II and                  )
C/O WALTER WHALEY,                         )
                                           )
            Defendants.                    )

                           Submitted: January 3, 2023
                           Decided: January 27, 2023

                    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

       Upon Consideration of Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
              GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

Nicholas D. Picollelli Jr., Esquire, and Zi-Xiang Shen, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys
General, Attorney General’s Office, 820 N. French Street, 7th Floor, Wilmington,
Delaware. Attorneys for Defendants.

Herbert Mondros, Esquire, Rigrodsky Law, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210,
Wilmington, DE. Attorney for Plaintiff.

Jones, J.
                                            INTRODUCTION
        Plaintiff Jonatan Rodriguez, an inmate at Sussex Correctional Institute (“SCI”),

    brings suit against a number of SCI correctional officers and employees

    (collectively, “Defendants”) following a January 26, 2018 physical confrontation,

    which he describes as a “good old-fashioned ass kicking.” Mr. Rodriguez alleges

    assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of his

    constitutional rights, and civil conspiracy. The Defendants move for summary

    judgment against all counts, arguing they used appropriate and reasonable force on

    Mr. Rodriguez after he defied orders to return to his cell. As explained below, the

    Court will GRANT, in part, and DENY, in part, the Defendants’ Motion.

                                  PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
        Mr. Rodriguez initially filed a complaint (the “First Complaint”) against thirty

    Delaware Department of Corrections (“DOC”) employees on January 23, 2020. As

    with the present action, the First Complaint alleged civil battery, civil assault,

    intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of his constitutional rights, and

    civil conspiracy. According to the First Complaint, DOC employees beat Mr.

    Rodriguez, held him in solitary confinement for several years, and otherwise

    mentally, physically, and emotionally abused him in retaliation for his purported

    involvement in the 2017 prison riot at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (the

    “Vaughn Riot”).1

1
  Although a grand jury initially indicted Mr. Rodriguez for murder and prison rioting stemming from the Vaughn
riot, those criminal charges were ultimately dismissed.
                                                            2
        The Court granted Mr. Rodriguez’s Motion to Amend the First Complaint on

    June 27, 2022.2 The Amended Complaint, which the Court considers here, contains

    five counts, dismisses sixteen of the original thirty defendants, and limits itself to

    the January 26, 2018 confrontation mentioned above.3

                                        PROCEDURAL ISSUES
        As a preliminary matter, the Court must decide which evidence to consider in

    deciding the present motion. Both parties, through their filings, have requested the

    Court to disregard certain allegations made by the other party.

        Mr. Rodriguez, for his part, encourages the Court to strike the first five

    paragraphs of the Defendants’ opening brief, as well as Volume One of Defendants’

    opening brief appendix. To Mr. Rodriguez, these portions of Defendants’ material

    contain irrelevant references to the Vaughn Riot, in defiance of the Court’s previous

    order.4

        Defendants, on the other hand, request the Court to disregard Mr. Rodriguez’s

    affidavit, as it contains information Mr. Rodriguez was required (and allegedly

    failed) to disclose during discovery.

        Upon careful review, neither Defendants’ material, nor Mr. Rodriguez’s

    affidavit, will be stricken. The Court’s reasoning follows.

2
  Prior to granting the Motion to Amend, the Court denied Mr. Rodriguez’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial on April
26, 2022. In that Motion, as with the Motion to Amend, Mr. Rodriguez sought to separate the January 26, 2018
confrontation from the rest of his allegations against DOC and SCI employees.
3
  Significantly, the Amended Complaint makes no mention of the riot at Vaughn Correctional. Upon review of
the Amended Complaint, Defendants moved for summary judgment. In support of the motion for summary
judgment, Defendants submitted an extensive appendix, which included two affidavits from correctional officers
involved in the January 2018 altercation with Mr. Rodriguez. This prompted Mr. Rodriguez to file his own
affidavit in response. Defendants’ reply brief contained two additional affidavits from other correctional officers.
4
  The Court’s previous order stated that if Mr. Rodriguez amended his complaint to remove mention of the Vaughn
Riot, then the Court would not consider the Vaughn Riot during future filings in this matter.
                                                            3
                    A. Defendants’ Mentions of the Vaughn Riot
           This dispute stems from the Court’s order made at the hearing on Mr.

       Rodriguez’s Motion to Bifurcate. There, the Court stated:

                    Let me ask you this question: If I limit – let’s assume, for the
                    sake of this discussion, that I’m considering bifurcating these
                    cases. If I bifurcate the cases with the understanding that it’s
                    only assault and battery, and there can be no mention of the
                    Vaughn riot, does that not clear up the issue that the State has?

                                               *        *       *

                    I’m going to deny the motion to bifurcate today. I’m going to
                    give you the opportunity at the appropriate time to bring it back
                    to me. But when it comes back to me, understand this: that the
                    only claims – the only way I will consider a further motion to
                    bifurcate this case, if I’m clear, one that the, quote, unquote,
                    question of motive is not in this first case; two, it’s absolutely
                    clear who the defendants are going to be. And they are my two
                    points.

                    I do not want an inconsistent verdict, I don’t want the
                    possibility of an inconsistent verdict. Which means that you’re
                    going to have to pare – if I’m going to grant it, you’re going to
                    have to pare it way down, and be very specific and very
                    singular in your evidence. Which means that none of the
                    evidence of motive can come into this case, and the only thing
                    that can come into this case is was there an assault and a
                    battery. The civil conspiracy claims, all of those, they’re gone.
                    All right?5

       Mr. Rodriguez takes the ruling as a definitive statement. Defendants (correctly)

       interpret the ruling as a hypothetical.

           But now that Mr. Rodriguez has amended his Complaint to remove mention of

       the Vaughn Riot, the Court questions why Defendants continue to include the riot

       in their filings. So, while the Court is not striking mention of the Vaughn Riot from

5
    Mot. to Bifurcate Hr’g Tr. at 8:2-8; 14:15-15:23.
                                                            4
    the Defendants’ filings, it also finds the references to be irrelevant. Rest assured,

    the Court did not take the Vaughn Riot into account in reaching its decision on

    summary judgment.6

                  B. Mr. Rodriguez’s Affidavit
             Next, the Court considers Defendants’ application to disregard Mr.

    Rodriguez’s affidavit. In sum, Defendants encourage the Court to ignore the

    affidavit because it contains information Mr. Rodriguez failed to disclose in

    discovery.

             Any fair comparison of Mr. Rodriguez’s affidavit against his discovery

    responses (especially his interrogatory answers) leads to one conclusion: the

    discovery responses are, at best, incomplete.                      The issue, then, becomes the

    appropriate remedy to cure the discrepancy between the affidavit and the responses.

             The Court’s inherent power to manage its own affairs provides it with the

    ability to issue sanctions for discovery abuses,7 including striking evidence from the

    record.8 When deciding whether to exclude evidence, the Court must balance its

    duty to admit all relevant and material evidence with its duty to enforce standards

    of fairness and the Rules of the Court.9

             With the above in mind, the Court finds the facts of this case do not warrant

    exclusion of Mr. Rodriguez’s affidavit. As of now, the docket indicates that the

    discovery taken so far has been limited to the exchange of written discovery.

6
  Obviously, the Court considered that Mr. Rodriguez was housed at SCI at the time of the alleged assault and battery.
7
  Hoag v. Amex. Assurance Co., 953 A.2d 713, 716 (Del. 2008).
8
  Concord Towers v. Long, 348 A.2d 325, 326 (Del. 1975).
9
  Id.
                                                             5
     Although the parties scheduled depositions, it is unclear as to whether they took

     them. What is clear, however, is that the parties did not present any deposition

     testimony in support of their positions in this motion.

             The affidavit provided by Mr. Rodriguez is not necessarily inconsistent with

     his interrogatory responses; rather, it is simply more complete. Additionally, video

     footage exists of the incident that forms the majority of Mr. Rodriguez’s claims.

     Thus, the Court will not exclude Mr. Rodriguez’s affidavit from consideration.

                                            FACTUAL RECORD
         The Court draws the following facts from Mr. Rodriguez’s affidavit in

     opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment:10

                       While at SCI, I worked as a janitor, cleaning the
                       bathrooms and showers. [After my shift], … I was
                       permitted to take a shower before returning to my cell.
                       I had maintained this routine consistently for around
                       two months leading up to January 26, 2018. On January
                       26, 2018, after my shift [], I prepared to use the shower.
                       Before I could shower, however, CO Cassidy [from the
                       control room] ordered me to return to my cell. At this
                       point, I was standing in the pod []. [I could not see CO
                       Cassidy] clearly through the [control room door]
                       window. As CO Cassidy was not ordinarily on [my]
                       housing unit, I told him I wanted to speak with a CO
                       who was more familiar with my routine of showering
                       after my shift []. CO Cassidy refused my request and I
                       then asked to speak with a Lieutenant. [As I did so],
                       one of the corrections officers remotely closed [my cell
                       door]. At the same time, I observed through the control
                       room window a group of around twenty (20) COs
                       assembling near CO Cassidy. I specifically observed
                       COs Cahall and Madigan at the pod door, and I heard
                       Cahall tell Cassidy, “open this god damn door … we’re
                       gonna fuck his little ass up.” Because the COs had

10
  Rule 56(c) requires the Court to view all facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Rodriguez. In this case, the
factual record, as it stands, is scant and the parties have taken very little discovery (including no depositions).
This is, perhaps, because security cameras captured the majority of the relevant events on video.
                                                              6
                      closed the door to my cell, I was unable to retreat. CO
                      Cassidy then opened the door from the control room and
                      a group of COs rushed into the pod.

                      Customarily, if an inmate is posing a threat, a CO can
                      handcuff the inmate through a slot in the door to restrain
                      the inmate without initiating contact. I believe this is a
                      DOC regulation. On this occasion, however, in
                      defiance of that protocol, a group of COs rushed through
                      the door and initiated contact with me. Cahall was the
                      first to charge through the door, spraying my face with
                      pepper spray. As the door to my cell had been closed, I
                      was cornered and unable to retreat. In response to the
                      pepper spray, I put my hands up instinctively to shield
                      my face and swung my arms in an effort to defend
                      myself. As a result of the pepper spray, I was
                      immediately blinded. I was in extreme pain and had
                      difficulty breathing.

                      The next thing I remember is being tackled and thrown
                      onto the ground, with several officers on top of me. I
                      was pinned to the floor. There was a knee on my lower
                      back and a knee on the side of my face. One CO was
                      contorting my lower body. Another CO was bending
                      and twisting my thumb while cuffing me. While I was
                      pinned to the ground, several COs punched me in the
                      face and kicked me in the thighs and ribs. During the
                      attack, I heard one CO say, “the State is gonna kill him
                      anyway, we might as well do it now.” The corrections
                      officers pinned me down and continued to punch me for
                      almost three minutes. To me, it seemed much longer.11

             Security cameras inside SCI captured the events of the January 26, 2018

     confrontation.12 The footage depicts Mr. Rodriguez cleaning his cell pod, per his

     usual routine, before facing the control room where CO Cassidy stood. Mr.

     Rodriguez then speaks to someone (allegedly CO Cassidy) through the control room

11
  Affidavit of Jonatan Rodriguez ¶ 12–23.
12
  The video only captures Mr. Rodriguez’s cell pod; it does not capture the control room where the correctional
officers gathered. The video is not accompanied by audio.
                                                            7
     door for the next three minutes.13 As Mr. Rodriguez talks to CO Cassidy, his cell

     door automatically slides shut behind him.14

        After the cell closes, COs Cahall and Madigan open the control room door and

     enter the cell pod.15 CO Cahall immediately fires a can of pepper spray in Mr.

     Rodriguez’s face.16 CO Madigan unsuccessfully attempts to tase him.17 Both COs

     then tackle Mr. Rodriguez to the floor.18

        Seconds later, eleven additional corrections officers enter the cell pod through

     the control room door.19 The additional corrections officers assist COs Cahall and

     Madigan in physically restraining Mr. Rodriguez on the floor.20 Two corrections

     officers then pull Mr. Rodriguez off the floor and drag him across the cell pod

     through the control room door.21 At this point, Mr. Rodriguez’s legs are in shackles

     and his arms appear handcuffed over his head.22

                                       STANDARD OF REVIEW
        Summary judgment is appropriate when the record “shows there is no genuine

     issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

     of law.”23 The moving party bears the burden of establishing the nonexistence of

13
   In light of supra note 5, the Court presumes, based on Mr. Rodriguez’s complaint, that it was CO Cassidy
behind the control room door.
14
   See SCI Security Video at timestamp 9:58:35–9:59:46.
15
   See id. at 9:58:46.
16
   See id.
17
   See id.
18
   See id.
19
   See id. at 9:59:48. Mr. Rodriguez identifies the corrections officers as COs Cassidy, Whaley, Smith, Seymore,
Mitchell, Hamrick, Sessler, McCarthy, and Callaway. These COs, other than CO McCarthy, are Defendants in
this litigation.
20
   See id. at 9:59:56–10:02:30.
21
   See id. at 10:02:35.
22
   See id. From the video, it is unclear how long Mr. Rodriguez had been handcuffed prior to being removed from
the floor.
23
   Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c).
                                                             8
     material issues of fact.24 The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish

     the existence of material issues of fact.25 In considering the motion, the Court must

     view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accept the

     nonmovant’s version of any disputed facts.26

                                                 ANALYSIS
        With the above considerations in mind, the Court turns to whether the evidence

     in the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to Mr. Rodriguez, establishes

     a genuine issue of fact as to each of his five claims.

             A. Civil Assault and Battery
             Counts I and II of Mr. Rodriguez’s complaint allege Defendants’ conduct

     sounds in tort for assault and battery. A prima facie assault case requires a general

     showing that a defendant’s conduct placed the plaintiff in apprehension of imminent

     harmful or offensive physical contact.27 For battery, a plaintiff must establish the

     defendant intentionally caused harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff. 28 To

     recover for battery, a plaintiff must merely show the defendant intended to make

     non-consensual contact with the plaintiff. The plaintiff need not prove the defendant

     intended to actually cause harm.29

24
   See Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979).
25
   See id. at 681.
26
   See Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
27
   See Brzoska v. Olson, 668 A.2d 1355, 1361 (Del. 1995). Delaware law considers “harmful or offensive” contact
to be that which offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. Id.
28
   See Miller v. Dockham, 723 A.2d 397 (Del. 1998).
29
   See id.
                                                            9
                Here, Defendants provide two assault and battery defenses, both rooted in

       statute.    First, Defendants argue 11 Del. C. §§ 467 and 6561(a) grant them

       permission to use reasonable force on inmates, so long as the force is justified.

                Defendants are not incorrect in their statutory interpretation. But when the

       Court views the facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Rodriguez, it is inescapable

       that a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the Defendants’ use of force was

       justified. The Court notes Defendants remotely locked Mr. Rodriguez’s cell behind

       him (thereby preventing his ability to retreat), failed to handcuff him through the

       slot in the control room door, and CO Cahall ordered CO Cassidy to “open [the] god

       damn [control room] door” so “[we can] fuck [Mr. Rodriguez]’s little ass up.”

                In the same vein, Defendants argue the State Torts Act30 bars Mr.

       Rodriguez’s claims. The State Torts Act, in sum, grants civil immunity to state

       actors so long as the alleged tortious conduct: (i) arose out of, and in connection

       with, the performance of official duties involving an exercise of discretion; (ii) was

       performed in good faith; and (iii) was performed without gross or wanton

       negligence.31 Based on the above reasoning, here again, the Court finds a genuine

       issue of fact exists as to whether the Defendants acted in good faith and without

       gross or wanton negligence. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to

       Counts I and II is accordingly DENIED.

30
     10 Del. C. § 4001.
31
     See id.
                                                    10
             B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
             Count III charges Defendants with intentional infliction of emotional distress

     (“IIED”). An IIED claim requires proof the defendant intentionally engaged in

     extreme or outrageous conduct that caused severe emotional distress.32 Outrageous

     behavior is “conduct that exceeds the bounds of decency and is regarded as

     intolerable in a civilized community.”33 As a matter of procedure, Delaware law

     requires plaintiffs produce expert medical testimony to establish the actions of the

     defendant proximately caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress.34

             Mr. Rodriguez has not produced expert medical testimony in support of his

     IIED claim. Consequently, he has failed to establish a prima facie IIED case under

     Delaware law.        Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Count III is

     GRANTED.

             C. Violation of the Delaware Constitution
             In Count IV, Mr. Rodriguez alleges Defendants violated: (i) his due process

     rights under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution; and (ii) his right to

     be free from cruel and unusual punishment under Article I, Section 11 of the

     Delaware Constitution.           Specifically, Mr. Rodriguez claims each Defendant

     “directly or indirectly, [] participated in, and cooperated with one another to

     intentionally permit the brutalization of [Mr. Rodriguez] in violation of his

32
   Hunt ex. rel. DeSombre v. State, 69 A.3d 260 (Del. 2013).
33
   Id.
34
   See Ciabattoni v. Teamsters Local 326, 2020 WL 4331344, at *5 (Del. Super. July 27, 2020); see also Doe v.
Wildey, 2012 WL 1408879, at *4 (Del. Super. Mar. 29, 2012).
                                                          11
     constitutional rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual

     punishment.”35

            Delaware law does not recognize private causes of action for the

     constitutional violations Mr. Rodriguez alleges.36 Therefore, these claims must fail.

            This Court recently rejected a plaintiff’s invitation to recognize a new cause

     of action for excessive force under Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution

     in Schueller v. Cordrey.37 The Schueller Court, instead, recognized: (i) the plaintiff

     had alternative remedies in state tort law; (ii) Delaware does not maintain a state

     statute similar to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) that defines new causes of

     action and their limits; (iii) creating a new cause of action would impose massive

     financial burdens on state and local entities by subjecting them to suits which lack

     defined boundaries; and (iv) the Delaware legislature is the entity best suited to

     create new causes of action.38

            Schueller applies equally to the constitutional violations alleged by Mr.

     Rodriguez in this case. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Count IV is

     GRANTED.

            D. Civil Conspiracy
            Finally, Count V alleges a civil conspiracy amongst the Defendants.

     Delaware law requires plaintiffs alleging civil conspiracy to show: (i) a

     confederation or combination of two or more persons; (ii) an unlawful act done in

35
   See Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶ 61.
36
   See Winter v. Richman, 2020 WL 6940760 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2020); see also Carr v. Town of Dewey Beach,
730 F. Supp. 591, 600 (D. Del. 1990).
37
   2017 WL 568344 (Del. Super. Feb. 13, 2017).
38
   See id. at *2.
                                                       12
     furtherance of the conspiracy; and (iii) actual damage.39 Proof of malice, (i.e., an

     intent to injure) is essential in proof of conspiracy.40

             Upon examining the facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Rodriguez, the

     Court finds there is a material factual dispute as to whether Defendants conspired to

     assault and batter him. The Court is especially troubled by Defendants’ inconsistent

     accident reports and the one-day delay in creating them (an alleged violation of

     DOC policy).41

             The record, as it presently stands, creates a question of whether Defendants

     engaged in a civil conspiracy.              That question must be answered by a jury.

     Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Count V is DENIED.

             E. Defendant Luis Gomez
             Former SCI corrections officer Luis Gomez is a named defendant in Mr.

     Rodriguez’s amended complaint. The Defendants have filed an affidavit averring

     that Mr. Gomez was not employed by SCI on January 26, 2018. 42 Mr. Rodriguez

     has produced no evidence in opposition to the affidavit.

             The only remaining accusation against Mr. Gomez that could possibly

     survive is the civil conspiracy claim. But civil conspiracy is not an independent

     action; it must be predicated on an underlying wrong.43 Unlike the other Defendants,

39
   See Nicolet, Inc. v. Nutt, 525 A.2d 146, 150 (Del. 1987).
40
   See UbiquiTel, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., 2005 WL 3533697, at *8 (Del. Ch. Dec. 14, 2005).
41
   These concerns, of course, are in addition to the troubling accusations mentioned in the assault and battery
discussion supra.
42
   The affidavit states, and Mr. Rodriguez has not opposed, that Mr. Gomez last worked at SCI on July 9, 2017.
43
   See WaveDivision Holdings, LLC v. Highland Capital Mgmt., LP., 2011 WL 5314507, at *17 (Del. Super. Nov.
2, 2011).
                                                           13
     Mr. Rodriguez has presented no evidence of underlying tortious conduct against Mr.

     Gomez. Mr. Gomez’s Motion for Summary Judgment is thereby GRANTED.

                                                     CONCLUSION
             For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

     GRANTED as to the IIED and constitutional violation claims, and DENIED as to

     the assault, battery, and civil conspiracy claims.44 Mr. Gomez’s Motion for

     Summary Judgment is GRANTED as unopposed.

           IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                    /s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
                                                                 Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge

     cc:          Original to Prothonotary

44
  Typically, the remedy for late production is to allow additional discovery or preclude use of the belatedly produced
material. The Court is satisfied that any additional discovery will not change the conclusion that a genuine issue of
fact exists as to the assault, battery, and civil conspiracy claims. However, if the Defendants so desire, the Court will
re-open discovery and allow the Defendants to explore the facts of Mr. Rodriguez’s affidavit so they can adequately
prepare for trial. Defendants should advise the Court of whether they want the Court to decide the case on the present
record or re-open discovery by close of business on February 10, 2023. If the Defendants choose to re-open discovery,
they should specify how long of an extension they require.

                                                              14