De Shawn Drumgo v. Mike Little
711 F. App'x 73
3rd Cir.2017Background
- De Shawn Drumgo, a Delaware prisoner proceeding pro se, sued prison officers alleging retaliation, two incidents of excessive force, and a failure-to-intervene claim arising in Feb., Apr., and Aug. 2014.
- Feb. 2014: Drumgo alleges four officers passed around his confidential legal materials in retaliation for filing suits/grievances.
- Apr. 2014: After refusing to walk to the infirmary, Drumgo alleges an officer dragged him by his shirt, punched him in the back of the head, and choked him; another officer allegedly failed to intervene.
- Aug. 2014: After being placed in a bug-infested shower and refusing to return to his cell, an officer used pepper spray and another allegedly kneed Drumgo in the face; Drumgo also alleged denial of opportunity to shower after being sprayed.
- District Court granted defendants’ summary judgment; Drumgo appealed. The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and summarily affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation for Feb. 2014 conduct (passing legal materials) | Feb. conduct was retaliation for litigation and grievances | Passing/taunting of materials was not motivated by litigation; no substantial evidence of retaliation | Affirmed: no substantial question; plaintiff did not press this on appeal |
| Retaliation for Aug. 2014 search/placement in shower | August actions were motivated by retaliation for prior litigation | Officers were unaware of Drumgo's litigation; no retaliatory motive shown | Affirmed: record shows lack of knowledge, so no retaliation |
| Excessive force—April incident (dragging, punch, choke) | Force was malicious and sadistic; factual disputes should go to a jury | Force used to restore order; plaintiff produced no discernible injury; force proportional | Affirmed: viewing facts favorably to plaintiff, force was not excessive under Eighth Amendment |
| Excessive force—August incident (pepper spray, knee to face) and denial of shower | Use of pepper spray and knee constituted malicious force and caused injury; denial to shower aggravated harm | Force was used to restore discipline; no evidence of significant injury or excessive use | Affirmed: force not excessive; failure-to-intervene claim also fails |
Key Cases Cited
- DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard of plenary review for summary judgment appeals)
- Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2002) (elements of a prisoner retaliation claim)
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (retaliation causation and burden-shifting principles)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (Eighth Amendment excessive-force test: malicious and sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2000) (factors for evaluating excessive-force claims)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (Whitley factors for prison force analysis)
- Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 35 F.3d 840 (3d Cir. 1994) (general rule barring new issues raised first on appeal)