Alspaugh v. McConnell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10353
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Alspaugh, an inmate at Ionia Maximum Security, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs at Marquette Branch Prison.
- Alspaugh alleges guards used force to subdue him on Nov. 1, 2004 after he resisted; he sustained a neck injury.
- Medical care for the neck and a separate toe injury is described, with multiple exams, a soft cervical collar, and eventual surgery after transfer.
- District court stayed discovery against state defendants for exhaustion issues and limited discovery against private defendants; it granted summary judgment against Alspaugh on all § 1983 claims.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court on deliberate indifference and reverses in part on excessive force, remanding for further proceedings.
- The court discusses preservation of objections, discovery rulings, and qualified immunity considerations in the context of summary judgment.$
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premature discovery and denial of Rule 56(f) relief | Alspaugh needed discovery to oppose summary judgment | State defendants cite vague Rule 56(f) motions | Abuse of discretion; discovery should have been allowed in part |
| Excessive force claim viability | Force on floor was excessive; no resistance | Force was reasonable and necessary | Reversed as to excessive force; remanded for factual development |
| Deliberate indifference to medical care | Care was woefully inadequate | Treatment provided; not deliberate indifference | Affirmed in favor of defendants on this claim |
| Procedural preservation of objections on appeal | Untimely objections should not bar review | Objections waived or defaulted | Timely preservation not required to bar review; some objections considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390 (6th Cir.1991) (preservation of objections in magistrate reports; waiver concept)
- Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292 (6th Cir.2001) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir.1987) (excuse default in interest of justice for untimely filings)
- CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402 (6th Cir.2008) (discovery considerations; Rule 56(f) guidance)
- Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir.2004) (qualified immunity as defense; discovery considerations)
- Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375 (6th Cir.1994) (when facts are disputed, qualified immunity not appropriate for summary judgment)
- Lockett v. Suardini, 526 F.3d 866 (6th Cir.2008) (use-of-force disputes; credibility determinations inapplicable on summary judgment)
- Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir.2010) (credibility and weighing issues prohibited on summary judgment)
- Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty., 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir.2004) (deliberate indifference standard; objective and subjective components)