David Goodman v. Z. Diggs, 986 F.3d 493

Plaintiff David Goodman, a mobility-impaired inmate, alleges correctional officers violently removed and left him bleeding and unconscious in a cell on Nov. 7, 2012.
Goodman filed three complaints: his original and first amended complaints were verified; his second amended (operative) complaint was notarized but not verified and slightly altered defendants/relief.
Defendants produced institutional records and affidavits and asserted Goodman’s injuries were self-inflicted; surveillance video existed but was reviewed by supervisors and not preserved.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants without treating Goodman’s earlier verified complaints as opposing affidavits and without resolving many of Goodman’s outstanding discovery requests.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit held the district court erred by ignoring the verified complaints (which retain evidentiary value despite being superseded) and that summary judgment was premature given unresolved discovery; the grant was vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a superseded verified complaint may be treated as an opposing affidavit at summary judgment	Verified original and first amended complaints are equivalent to affidavits and create genuine factual disputes	The later (operative) unverified amended complaint supersedes and nullifies the evidentiary value of earlier pleadings	An amended complaint does not divest an earlier verified complaint of its evidentiary value; district court erred in disregarding them
Whether summary judgment was premature given outstanding discovery	Goodman needed discovery (photos, medical records, video, witness evidence) to oppose summary judgment	Goodman failed to file a formal Rule 56(d) affidavit and sought evidence that allegedly would not create a genuine issue	Summary judgment was premature; district court abused its discretion by deciding before resolving material discovery requests

Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991) (verified complaint may serve as opposing affidavit at summary judgment)
Davis v. Zahradnick, 600 F.2d 458 (4th Cir. 1979) (same rule on verified pleadings)
Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2017) (a superseded verified complaint retains evidentiary value)
Barnes v. Sea Haw. Rafting, LLC, 889 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 2018) (adopts Beal rule)
Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454 (8th Cir. 2004) (treated verified complaints as affidavits for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment permissible only after adequate time for discovery)
McCray v. Md. Dep’t of Transp., 741 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing summary judgment entered while discovery pending)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (extent of injury is relevant to Eighth Amendment excessive-force inquiry)