Dizzley v. Tutt
8:18-cv-01692
D.S.C.Jun 5, 2020Background
- Pro se state prisoner Terron Dizzley sued multiple SCDC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) failure to separate him from a cellmate, (b) failure to intervene during a knife attack in October 2017, (c) inadequate medical care after that attack, and (d) excessive force in March 2018.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Magistrate Judge Austin recommended granting in part and denying in part, specifically recommending denial as to Lt. Terry on the October 2017 Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
- Factual dispute: Dizzley says he screamed that his cellmate had a knife and officers (including Terry) stood outside the cell for 6–7 minutes while he was injured and bleeding; Terry’s affidavit says he did not observe a weapon and waited until he had sufficient officers to open the door.
- District court reviewed objections de novo where specific, found genuine disputes as to Terry’s knowledge and state of mind, and concluded Terry’s affidavit did not eliminate a fact issue.
- Court denied summary judgment as to the Eighth Amendment claim against Terry (and denied qualified immunity), but granted summary judgment for Lt. Moss, Nurse Brewer, and all other remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment failure to protect — Lt. Terry (Oct. 2017) | Terry and other armed officers stood outside while Dizzley screamed that his cellmate had a knife; failure to intervene caused serious injury. | Terry avers he did not see a weapon and waited for sufficient officers before opening the door. | Denied summary judgment as to Terry; jury issue on whether he knew of substantial risk and was deliberately indifferent. Qualified immunity denied. |
| Failure to separate — Lt. Moss | Moss refused Dizzley’s requests to be moved or placed in protective custody despite his complaints of danger. | Moss avers she was not assigned to that unit, does not recall any threats, and would have offered protective custody had she known. | Granted summary judgment for Moss; plaintiff submitted no admissible evidence to create genuine dispute of Moss’s knowledge/state of mind. |
| Inadequate medical care — Nurse Brewer | Dizzley asserts need for staples, CT scan, antibiotics, ongoing pain and migraines; Brewer’s care was insufficient. | Brewer avers she cleaned wounds, used Dermabond, and administered a tetanus shot; no evidence she was deliberately indifferent. | Granted summary judgment for Brewer; no admissible evidence of deliberate indifference or sufficiently serious denial of care. |
| Claims against all other defendants | (Various, not specifically objected to at district level) | Defendants moved for summary judgment on remaining claims. | Adopted magistrate’s recommendation and granted summary judgment for all other defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (establishes deliberate indifference standard for prisoner safety).
- Danser v. Stansberry, 772 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2014) (defines serious-deprivation and risk standards for failure-to-protect claims).
- Brown v. N.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 612 F.3d 720 (4th Cir. 2010) (explains knowledge-and-ability-to-avert-risk framing).
- Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449 (6th Cir. 1990) (qualified-immunity analysis where officers knew of weapon; cited for limits on immunity).
- Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525 (4th Cir. 1997) (unarmed-officials exception to duty to physically intervene).
- MacKay v. Farnsworth, 48 F.3d 491 (10th Cir. 1995) (distinguishes verbal intervention before calling for backup).
- Orange v. Fielding, 517 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D.S.C. 2007) (denying qualified immunity where factual dispute existed about awareness of danger).
- Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991) (nonmoving party must respond with affidavits or evidence to survive summary judgment).