Court Opinion

ID: 9486130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:38:46.575814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:32.527339
License: Public Domain

LUTTIG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority’s holding that appellant raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was causing a distur*1083bance and thus whether some force was justified under the circumstances. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion in dicta that any injury sustained by appellant was more than de minimis and therefore cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I dissent.
I.
In the only holding by the majority, it reverses the district court’s award of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor on the niggling ground that the district court “never directly posed to [appellant]” the question of whether he was creating a disturbance. Ante at 1081 (emphasis added). The district court, however, was under no obligation to pose this question to the plaintiff in ruling on the summary judgment motion, and the majority offers no authority whatsoever (and little discussion) in support of its contrary conclusion. In any event, as implied by the majority’s forced holding that the district court did not “directly” ask this question, the district court in fact did ask appellant the question that it is now reversed for not asking more directly. In his affidavit appended to his motion for summary judgment, Sergeant Taylor explicitly represented that “Norman became disruptive” and “began yelling at and to the inmates being assembled outside the passageway to be taken to court,” J.A. at 34-35,1 and that his (Taylor’s) actions were taken to “maintain[] discipline and security, and not ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,’ ” id. at 23 (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973)). The district court informed appellant, who in any event was represented by counsel, that in order to avoid summary judgment he was required to “set out ... specific facts that show that [he] and the defendant truly disagree[d] about one or more important facts present in this case.” Id. at 46 (emphasis added). The court further instructed, in significant language not mentioned by the majority, that “the plaintiff, in his affidavits and exhibits, should address himself, as clearly as possible, to the issues and facts stated in the complaint and in the affidavits of the defendants.” Id. at 46-47 (emphasis added).2
As appellant and the majority acknowledge, despite these pointed admonitions from the court, appellant never disputed, in either his original submissions or his supplemental filings,3 the material allegation that he was being disruptive at the time of the alleged incident. Nor, as the district court specifically found, id. at 77 n. 3, were Sergeant Taylor’s averments challenged by either of appellant’s fellow inmates who submitted affidavits in support of his assertion that Taylor struck him. See id. at 68-70. Under these circumstances, the district court properly concluded that there existed no material dispute as to whether appellant was creating a disturbance at the time of the alleged incident.
II.
Although it reverses the district court’s award of summary judgment because an issue of material fact existed on the question of whether appellee’s actions were prompted by appellant’s disturbance, the court proceeds in dicta to conclude also that appellant’s alleged injury, although not significant or serious, *1084was more than de minimis for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. Ante at 1082.4 This unnecessary discussion is especially unfortunate, because there is even more reason to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this regard.
Appellant’s only claim is that he has a sore thumb, and there is not a single piece of record evidence even to support this claim. J.A. at 77 (district court finding that appellant failed to produce any corroborating evidence of his alleged injury). Indeed, not only did appellant fail to proffer any evidence of injury to rebut the independent medical provider’s affidavit stating that a search of Norman’s medical files revealed no evidence that he had been injured, see id. at 27, there is an abundance of record evidence that there was no injury at all. Most significantly, the record shows that appellant had at least three separate medical examinations, including one the very day of the alleged incident, none of which disclosed any injury to his hand — facts not mentioned by the majority. Id. at 30-38.5 Not surprisingly, as the majority impliedly acknowledges, there is a similar absence of evidence of psychological injury.
III.
In sum, as the district court recognized, this is precisely the kind of case for which Rule 56 was intended. Appellant chose to rest entirely on the unsupported allegations in his pleadings in response to proffered evidence in support of summary judgment. As a consequence, not only was there no factual dispute that appellant was creating a disturbance, there was no evidence that he was even injured. Under the most elementary principles governing application of Rule 56, appellee is entitled to judgment.

. Taylor's affidavit explained that appellant's conduct was "disruptive to prison security as the deputies were attempting to create an accurate list of the inmates being transported to court that day,” a list that was "verified through a roll call procedure." Id. at 35.

. Counsel for appellant disingenuously argues that the district court instructed appellant "not [to] respond or refer to Taylor’s affidavit directly.” See Reply Br. at 2 n. 1. It did not so instruct appellant, as is clear from the full instruction, which was misquoted by appellant as to omit that appellant was specifically instructed by the court to respond to the "affidavits of the defendants.” See J.A. at 47.

.When appellant originally submitted his summary judgment materials without original signatures and notarization, the district court provided him first thirty days, and then twenty additional days, to refile those documents. Id. at 48-49. After appellant responded to Sergeant Taylor’s summary judgment motion, he requested additional time to file supplemental affidavits, because he had obtained assistance from a post-conviction project. Id. at 60. The court, over objection, granted this motion as well. Id. at 62.

. The majority also states in dicta that, even assuming that there was no injury at all, the mere act of swinging the keys at Norman is itself sufficient force to defeat summary judgment on a claim that the actions were taken "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Ante at 1081 n. 4. Merely swinging keys at an insurgent prisoner in an effort to restore order cannot, under any reasonable reading of the Supreme Court’s or this court’s precedent, give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.

. Appellant’s original complaint stated that he had submitted fifteen to sixteen requests for medical attention. He could not produce a single one of those requests or any evidence that they were actually submitted. In the only material submitted beyond appellant's complaint (and affidavit, which again is merely a restatement of the complaint's allegations), appellant complained in an Inmate Grievance Form that a prison doctor thought that he was "faking" his hand injury. Id. at 66.