Court Opinion

ID: 9754514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:02:55.626227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:20.385382
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10200   Document: 31-1    Date Filed: 08/28/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10200
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       OCTAVIOUS BUFORD,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER,             ALABAMA        DEPARTMENT         OF
       CORRECTIONS,
       CYNTHIA STEWART,
       Warden of Holman Correctional Facility,
       In her individual capacity,
       TERRY RAYBON,
       Assistant Warden of Holman Correctional Facility,
       In his individual capacity,
       LEON BOLLING,
       Warden of the St. Clair Correctional Facility,
USCA11 Case: 23-10200      Document: 31-1    Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court               23-10200

       In his individual capacity,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00095-WS-MU
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ABUDU and ANDERSON,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Octavious Buford, an Alabama prisoner, appeals the sum-
       mary judgment in favor of Terry Raybon, assistant warden of Hol-
       man Correctional Facility, and against Buford’s complaint that
       Raybon ordered or failed to stop officers from beating Buford in
       retaliation for complaining about his conditions of confinement.
       42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
               We view the evidence in the light most favorable to Buford
       as the nonmoving party. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1190 (11th
       Cir. 2002). In February 2020, Buford complained about his condi-
       tions of confinement to Raybon and Warden Cynthia Stewart.
       During one discussion, Buford joked with them, “If I sue
       you . . . do you think you could pay?” Raybon asked if Buford
USCA11 Case: 23-10200      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       23-10200               Opinion of the Court                         3

       would accept $100,000, but Buford said, “That’s not
       enough . . . . because the way you got me up under these condi-
       tions.” Raybon “walked off” and “sent the riot team” at him. About
       ten members of the “riot” team entered his cell. An officer asked,
       “What you and Warden Raybon got going on?” and told Buford to
       get out of bed. Buford said, “I’m not fixing to let y’all jump on me
       like that . . . [with] no authority.” The officers started whispering
       to each other and “just reached in there and started spraying” him
       with large cans of mace before telling him to “cuff up,” which he
       did. After he was handcuffed, the officers entered his cell, jumped
       on him, kicked him, stomped him, dragged him down a ramp and
       flipped him upside down, and kept stomping him for five to ten
       minutes.
              The officers took Buford to the infirmary, but the medical
       assessment reported no discernable injuries such as redness, mark-
       ings, or scratches. Buford received disciplinary infractions for diso-
       beying a corrections officer and for possessing contraband. The in-
       cident report stated that an officer had ordered Buford to cuff up
       for a contraband search, and when Buford refused, the officer ad-
       ministered a one-second burst of pepper spray, handcuffed Buford,
       and discovered a cell phone under the toilet. A week later, Buford
       spoke with a mental health counselor about the incident and said,
       “I refused to cuff up and they sprayed me. I know I was wrong. . . . I
       need to learn to control my temper.”
              Buford sued Raybon and several other officers for various
       violations of the Eighth Amendment. Buford alleged that Raybon
USCA11 Case: 23-10200      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10200

       ordered the officers to beat him, knew that the officers were beat-
       ing him, and failed to stop or prevent the beating. Buford submitted
       depositions of two inmate witnesses, Mario Avila and Earl Ma-
       nassa. Avila attested that he could see Buford’s cell from the reflec-
       tion on the window in the “cube,” which was a secured guard post
       with a direct line of sight into the cells. When asked about Raybon’s
       location during the beating, Avila said, “I think he stayed inside the
       cube.” When asked again whether Raybon was inside the cube dur-
       ing the incident occurred, Avila said, “I think so. . . . Yeah. I think
       so. . . . I think [he] was in the cube.” Avila believed that the warden
       “should be present” during an extraction. Manassa stated that he
       could not see the cube or the inside of Buford’s cell, but he saw
       several officers go to the cell and smelled pepper spray.
               In his affidavit, Raybon denied ever ordering a “hit” on an
       inmate, directing officers to use unwarranted force on an inmate,
       or retaliating against an inmate for exercising his constitutional
       rights.
              The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
       Raybon. The district court ruled that Buford could not establish
       that Raybon ordered the officers to beat him because his testimony
       was that Raybon “sent the riot team” to his cell, not that Raybon
       sent the riot team with orders to assault him. And the district court
       ruled that Buford could not establish that Raybon was liable for
       failing to stop the beating. The district court explained that alt-
       hough Buford argued that Raybon was present at the scene and
       watched the beating, Buford’s assertion that Raybon was stationed
USCA11 Case: 23-10200      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       23-10200               Opinion of the Court                         5

       in the cube and could see Buford’s cell relied solely on Avila’s tes-
       timony. The district court explained that Avila’s testimony was not
       that Avila saw Raybon in the cube or knew what Raybon could see
       from his location, but that he “th[ought]” Raybon was in the cube
       “when all of this happened,” which meant that Avila lacked per-
       sonal knowledge that Raybon saw the alleged beating, Federal
       Rules of Evidence 602. The district court determined that Buford
       failed to establish that Raybon knew of a constitutional violation
       without any evidence that Raybon saw it.
              We review de novo a summary judgment. Underwood v. City
       of Bessemer, 11 F.4th 1317, 1327 (11th Cir. 2021). Summary judg-
       ment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
       material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
       law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
              The district court correctly entered summary judgment in
       favor of Raybon because Buford’s evidence was insufficient to es-
       tablish a genuine issue of material fact about whether Raybon saw
       or otherwise knew that the officers were beating Buford. At the
       summary judgment stage, Buford had to present substantial evi-
       dence to permit a reasonable jury to find that Raybon was “in a
       position to intervene in an ongoing constitutional violation” and
       “failed to do so.” Williams v. Radford, 64 F.4th 1185, 1199 (11th Cir.
       2023). Buford failed to do so. Buford did not see Raybon during the
       beating because Raybon had “walked off” after their discussion.
       Manassa could not see the cube from his cell. And the entirety of
       Avila’s deposition, even the portions not considered by the district
USCA11 Case: 23-10200      Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 08/28/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10200

       court, establishes that Avila did not testify that he knew that Ray-
       bon saw the alleged beating. So, viewed in the light most favorable
       to Buford, none of the evidence creates a genuine issue of material
       fact about whether Raybon knew to intervene during the beating.
       See id. And Buford does not challenge the ruling that his testimony
       that Raybon “sent” officers to his cell failed to establish that Raybon
       ordered the officers to assault him. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
       Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014).
              We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Raybon.