Delaware Prison Officials Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Excessive Force Claim
Delaware Prison Officials Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Excessive Force Claim
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed an order of a district court granting summary judgment for prison official accused of violating a pretrial detainee’s Eighth Amendment protections.
Delaware state prisoner De-Shawn Drumgo appealed the order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment for prison officials in Drumgo’s lawsuit. Drumgo’s suit alleged that the officials had used excessive force against him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed on May 24, 2013, holding that the defendants--including Corporal Reginald Brown and Lieutenant Stevenson--were not entitled to summary judgment.
In September 2007, Drumgo was a pretrial detainee at a correctional center in Delaware. Brown arrived on September 27, 2007, to transport Drumgo to court. Due to prisoner transport rules, Brown told Drumgo that the thermal shirt he had on under the prison jumpsuit was not allowed. According to Drumgo, Brown repeated himself, brandishing a can of pepper spray after Drumgo asked to see the lieutenant because of the cold temperature outside.
Drumgo then said he would not be able to breathe if he was sprayed since he suffered from asthma. When Brown pointed the pepper spray at Drumgo, Drumgo ducked. Brown, instead of spraying Drumgo, tackled him while he was handcuffed and shackled. Evidently, Brown lost his pepper spray before tackling him. Lieutenant Stevenson and Corporals Thompson, Debra Stiles and Alexander, who had been alerted, pepper sprayed an unresisting Drumgo and Joined Brown in beating him, even using handcuffs as a weapon. Two prisoners who had witnessed the incident provided similar statements.
Brown and Stiles presented a different account. They claimed that Drumgo, refusing to remove his shirt, had approached and stuck Brown. With the exception of Stiles, the guards pepper sprayed and grabbed a flailing Drumgo until they were able to restrain and handcuff him. Brown and Stevenson denied using restraints to harm Drumgo.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that their use of force had been exercised in good faith and had been in response to Drumgo’s disobeying orders and acting aggressively. The court relied on a statement by Drumgo that he may have swung at Brown’s pepper spray and on a medical note alleging that Drumgo admitted to no pain when examined on September 27, 2007, and that no apparent injuries were observed. This was despite Drumgo’s claims that he had been kept from court to hide his injuries form others.
The court of appeals reversed the district court’s order, holding that an issue of material fact remained regarding Drumgo’s excessive force claim as to “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” (See: Hudson V McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992))
Required to view evidence in a light most favorable to a plaintiff, the court of appeals stated that the evidence did not support summary judgment for the defendants. The medical note-if admissible-and Drumgo’s version of events were for the fact finder to decide, not for the district court to dismiss.
See: Drumgo v. Brown, Case No. 12-1243( 3d Cir. 2013)/
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
Drumgo v. Brown
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case No. 12-1243( 3d Cir. 2013) |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |