Gordon v. Beckles
1:09-cv-00637
D. Del.Mar 9, 2011Background
- Gordon, proceeding pro se, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and related claims arising from incidents with a Quick Response Team at VCC in August 2008.
- August 6, 2008: QRT rushed Gordon, he sustained a fractured nose and facial sutures after being ordered to cuff up; Neal and DeBerry were at the door.
- August 29, 2008: Beckles cap-stunned Gordon after he cursed at him; Gordon alleges multiple defendants used force or failed to intervene.
- Gordon alleges excessive force, failure to intervene, and supplemental state claims; he has been housed in SHU since November (year truncated in text).
- The court granted leave to amend, granted in part and denied in part discovery relief, denied default requests, and granted summary judgment to several defendants, narrowing remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity as to official-capacity claims | Gordon asserts individual and official-capacity claims against officers. | Defendants argue official-capacity claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. | Official-capacity claims barred; grant summary judgment on those claims. |
| Whether Neal, Thomas, Marshall, and Nieves used excessive force | Gordon claims these officers participated in or witnessed excessive force. | Defendants contend no excessive force occurred by these officers; they held Gordon. | No genuine dispute; these defendants granted summary judgment on excessive force. |
| Intervention/failure-to-protect liability by Neal, Thomas, Marshall, Nieves | Gordon asserts failure to intervene to prevent force by Beckles/St. QRT. | Defendants argue they did not fail to intervene; standard is not violated by others' actions. | Remaining failure-to-protect claims against these officers survive summary judgment. |
| Whether Turner and DeBerry should face claims | Turner and DeBerry are defendants; discovery and trial issues persist. | Turner and DeBerry disputed; summary judgment granted against others, but issues remain for Turner/DeBerry. | Turner and DeBerry remain; summary judgment denied for them at this stage. |
| Discovery and default motions | Gordon seeks default entries and broad discovery. | Requests are unfounded or overly broad. | Default and most default-judgment requests denied; discovery rulings partially granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010) (core test for excessive force in prison context; subjective vs objective inquiry)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issues of material fact in summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (burden to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (default judgment discretionary and requires proper procedure)
- Board of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Eleventh Amendment immunity for state officers)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official-capacity claims share Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) (state immunity principles in official-capacity suits)
- Ali v. Howard, 353 F. App'x 667 (3d Cir. 2009) (reaffirmation of appellate standard for summary judgment)
- Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard for evaluating summary judgment in context of records)