Brent Jacoby v. Sheriff Huey Mack
666 F. App'x 759
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jacoby, a pretrial detainee at Baldwin County Sheriff’s Corrections Center, alleged retaliation and excessive force after being transferred to "high max" (Feb 22, 2012) and after an April 2012 incident where officers used OC spray and placed him in a restraint chair.
- Carr (classification officer) said he transferred Jacoby for four non-retaliatory reasons (threatened an officer, requested protective custody, refusal to cooperate, history of hiding contraband); Jacoby only disputes the alleged threat.
- In April 2012 officers Keers, Rowell, and Boyington entered Jacoby’s cell after he loudly demanded a supervisor; they pepper-sprayed him, allegedly rubbed his face in spray, rinsed his face for 2–3 seconds, and placed him in a restraint chair.
- Jacoby remained in the chair in pepper-sprayed clothes for ~8.5 hours, allegedly begging for cleaning and bathroom access, urinating on himself, and being taunted; defendants reference unspecified “fifteen minute checks.”
- Procedural posture: magistrate converted defendants’ special report to summary judgment motion; district court adopted R&R and granted summary judgment to all defendants; Eleventh Circuit reviews de novo and affirms in part, reverses in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation — transfer to high max (Carr) | Transfer was retaliation for grievances and lawsuit | Transfer based on legitimate reasons (threat, protective custody, noncooperation, contraband) | Summary judgment for Carr affirmed — no causal link; lawsuit filed after transfer; grievances are conclusory and undisputed legitimate reasons would have produced transfer anyway |
| Retaliation — pepper spray and restraint chair (Keers, Rowell, Boyington) | Leaving him insufficiently decontaminated in chair was to deter grievances/lawsuit | Use of force and subsequent decontamination were legitimate responses to disorderly, noncompliant behavior | Summary judgment for defendants affirmed — plaintiff failed to show causal connection to protected activity |
| Excessive force — continued force/decontamination & prolonged restraint (Keers, Rowell) | Rubbing face in spray, inadequate decontamination, and 8.5-hour restraint were objectively unreasonable and excessive | Initial spray justified; alleged post-spray treatment was reasonable or unknown due to "fifteen minute checks"; qualified immunity applies | Summary judgment reversed as to Keers and Rowell on excessive force — genuine factual dispute exists and pre-Kingsley precedent (Danley) clearly established that continuing force on subdued detainee is unlawful |
| Failure to intervene (Boyington) | Boyington failed to stop or mitigate excessive force | Boyington had no involvement after placement in chair and no role in checks | Summary judgment for Boyington affirmed — no evidence he acted or omitted to act during the incident |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) (elements for inmate retaliation claim)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective-unreasonableness standard for pretrial detainee excessive-force claims)
- Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (continuing use of force on subdued detainee can be excessive)
- Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2008) (defendant entitled to prevail if action would have occurred absent protected conduct)
- Marsh v. Butler Cty., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (qualified immunity should be addressed early)
- United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (verified complaint may be treated as affidavit)
- Evers v. General Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984 (11th Cir. 1985) (conclusory affidavit allegations have no probative value)