Harrison v. Gregg, 1:12-cv-00005

Background

Plaintiff Lorenzo Harrison, a former inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against correctional officers William Gregg and Josh Murray for an incident on June 12, 2011.
Plaintiff alleges Gregg entered his cell, sprayed mace, and beat him; Murray stood in the doorway and failed to intervene; Plaintiff was handcuffed, taken to the infirmary, forced face-down on an exam table, and assaulted by unidentified staff.
Gregg and Murray contend Harrison was verbally resistant, Gregg deployed pepper spray, took Harrison to the ground using a displacement technique, and Harrison kicked Gregg; officers say force was limited and consistent with custody procedures.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal: official-capacity claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment and, alternatively, qualified immunity for Gregg and Murray on individual-capacity claims; Plaintiff objected and submitted a sworn affidavit late.
The district court adopted the R&R in full, overruled Plaintiff’s objections, granted summary judgment for Defendants, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend to add additional defendants (futility, undue delay, prejudice, and statute-of-limitations problems).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are official-capacity damages claims against state officers barred by Eleventh Amendment?	Harrison did not contest Eleventh Amendment bar.	Ohio has not waived immunity for monetary damages.	Held: Official-capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; summary judgment for Defendants.
Are Gregg and Murray entitled to qualified immunity for alleged use of force?	Factual disputes (location on bunk, blocking door, extent of force) preclude immunity determination; denied discovery hampered evidence.	Use-of-force was de minimis; medical records show minimal injury; no disputed material facts prevent immunity.	Held: Qualified immunity applies; summary judgment for Defendants.
Did the Magistrate abuse discretion in denying additional discovery under Rule 56(d)?	Plaintiff contends he was prevented from obtaining affidavits and other discovery.	Plaintiff had months to conduct discovery, offered no specified reasons under Rule 56(d); delay unexplained.	Held: Denial affirmed; Plaintiff failed to show specific need or justification for additional discovery.
Should leave to amend to add new defendants/claims be granted?	Plaintiff seeks to add several officers (including Sparks, Conn) and conspiracy/excessive-force claims against them based on alleged infirmary assault and cover-up.	Defendants argue undue delay, prejudice, and futility; statute of limitations bars new excessive-force claims and relation-back fails.	Held: Motion to amend denied as untimely, prejudicial, and futile (statute-of-limitations and Rule 15(c) relation-back fail).

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.) (notice requirement and waiver for failure to object to R&R)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct.) (summary-judgment burden on movant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (summary-judgment standards and genuine dispute requirement)
Turker v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Corr., 157 F.3d 453 (6th Cir.) (state immunity under Eleventh Amendment)
Bazzi v. City of Dearborn, 658 F.3d 598 (6th Cir.) (elements of § 1983 civil-conspiracy claim)
Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Sup. Ct.) (Rule 15 leave to amend standards)
Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417 (6th Cir.) (futility standard for amendment)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading must contain factual enhancement beyond bare conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading standards applying Twombly)
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.) (standard for certifying appeal not taken in good faith under § 1915)