×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Immunity for Beating Brain Injured MD Prisoner
The plaintiff, who had had a prior brain injury and was acting disruptively
in his cell, was subjected to a cell extraction and sustained further
disabling brain injury as a result of trauma including a facial fracture.
However, as a result of that injury, he couldn't remember what had happened.
Excessive force claims by pre-trial detainees are governed by the due
process clause. The plaintiff must show that the officers' actions
amounted to punishment, were not merely an incident of some other
legitimate governmental purpose, and the resulting injury was more than de
minimis.
The court denies summary judgment to the defendants. They claimed they
struck no blows, but the plaintiff's evidence, including the severity of
his injuries, provides circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The
defendants argued that even if they struck and kicked him, that wasn't
punishment, because they were trying to restore discipline and order.
However, it is undisputed that when they entered his cell, he was lying on
his bunk, on his back, with his hands folded behind his head, and the
justification for the entry was solely that he needed protection from
harming himself. These facts could support an inference of punitive
intent. They also defeat any claim of qualified immunity.
The plaintiff's claim against the municipality is rejected absent any
substantial evidence of failure to train or supervise. His citation of a
prior incident of injury to a mentally ill prisoner did not help: "The law
is clear, however, that proof of a single incident of even unconstitutional
activity is not sufficient to prove the existence of a municipal custom."
(671) See: Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F.Supp.2d 656 (D.Md. 2003).
in his cell, was subjected to a cell extraction and sustained further
disabling brain injury as a result of trauma including a facial fracture.
However, as a result of that injury, he couldn't remember what had happened.
Excessive force claims by pre-trial detainees are governed by the due
process clause. The plaintiff must show that the officers' actions
amounted to punishment, were not merely an incident of some other
legitimate governmental purpose, and the resulting injury was more than de
minimis.
The court denies summary judgment to the defendants. They claimed they
struck no blows, but the plaintiff's evidence, including the severity of
his injuries, provides circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The
defendants argued that even if they struck and kicked him, that wasn't
punishment, because they were trying to restore discipline and order.
However, it is undisputed that when they entered his cell, he was lying on
his bunk, on his back, with his hands folded behind his head, and the
justification for the entry was solely that he needed protection from
harming himself. These facts could support an inference of punitive
intent. They also defeat any claim of qualified immunity.
The plaintiff's claim against the municipality is rejected absent any
substantial evidence of failure to train or supervise. His citation of a
prior incident of injury to a mentally ill prisoner did not help: "The law
is clear, however, that proof of a single incident of even unconstitutional
activity is not sufficient to prove the existence of a municipal custom."
(671) See: Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F.Supp.2d 656 (D.Md. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Simms v. Hardesty
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 303 F.Supp.2d 656 (D.Md. 2003) |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F.Supp.2d 656 (D.Md. 08/27/2003)
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
[2] Civil No. AMD 02-3506
[3] 303 F.Supp.2d 656
[4] August 27, 2003
[5] BYRON B. SIMMS, AS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF CHRISTOPHER BYRON SIMMS, PLAINTIFF
v.
JANICE HARDESTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
[6] ORDER
[7] In accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is this 27th day of August, 2003, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED
[8] (1) That Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED
[9] (2) That PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM ASSERTED IN COUNT VIII OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SHALL GO FORWARD AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS KENNETH A BRUCE, KENNETH BRIAN MACK, and JOSEPH XAVIER LYLES.
[10] ANDRE M. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
[2] Civil No. AMD 02-3506
[3] 303 F.Supp.2d 656
[4] August 27, 2003
[5] BYRON B. SIMMS, AS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF CHRISTOPHER BYRON SIMMS, PLAINTIFF
v.
JANICE HARDESTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
[6] ORDER
[7] In accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is this 27th day of August, 2003, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED
[8] (1) That Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED
[9] (2) That PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM ASSERTED IN COUNT VIII OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SHALL GO FORWARD AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS KENNETH A BRUCE, KENNETH BRIAN MACK, and JOSEPH XAVIER LYLES.
[10] ANDRE M. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE