Lott v. Scaturo
2:18-cv-01777
D.S.C.Sep 18, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff, a civilly committed resident in South Carolina’s Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program at a CCRS facility, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an assault that occurred May 23, 2018.
- Plaintiff alleges he intervened to protect another resident (G.) from an attack by resident W., and that W. then stabbed and struck Plaintiff; plaintiff contends staff were off-post and lacked radios.
- Plaintiff sued CCRS Director Timothy Budz for negligence, failure to protect, and constitutional violations (First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments), alleging Budz knew of W.’s violent history.
- Defendants produced prior incident reports (showing three earlier encounters between W. and plaintiff from 2016–2017, one physical) and affidavits denying Budz had actual knowledge of a substantial risk from W.; video of the May 23 incident was produced but is inconclusive.
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendant; the district court reviewed objections de novo, adopted the R&R, granted summary judgment, and denied plaintiff’s subpoena request for materials relating to an unrelated August 10, 2019 incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Budz violated § 1983 by failing to protect plaintiff (Eighth/Due Process standard) | Budz was aware of W.’s violent conduct and ignored the risk, so acted with deliberate indifference | Budz lacked actual knowledge that W. posed a substantial risk to plaintiff and did not consciously disregard any risk | No § 1983 liability; summary judgment for defendant (no evidence of actual knowledge/deliberate indifference) |
| Whether negligence/"mitigating circumstances" are actionable under § 1983 | Plaintiff seeks relief for negligent failures and mitigating circumstances related to the attack | Defendant argues negligence is not a constitutional violation under § 1983 | Negligence/mitigating-circumstances claims are not actionable under § 1983; cited Daniels v. Williams |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record (genuine issue of material fact) | Plaintiff points to prior incidents and claims he complained to staff as creating factual disputes | Defendant points to incident reports, affidavits, and lack of documented complaints showing no disputed material fact | Summary judgment appropriate; plaintiff failed to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial |
| Whether subpoena for August 10, 2019 incident materials should be granted | Plaintiff contends later incident shows W’s ongoing dangerousness and Budz’s notice | Defendant and court note the incident is after the suit’s event and plaintiff was not involved; materials are not probative of Budz’s knowledge before May 23, 2018 | Subpoena denied as the August 2019 incident is not material to Budz’s knowledge at the relevant time |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant and identification of record evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard; scintilla insufficient)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must produce specific facts showing genuine issue)
- First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 (no genuine issue if record could not lead a rational trier to find for nonmovant)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (negligent acts by officials do not constitute a due-process violation)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for failure to protect)
- Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (burden on inmate to prove Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977 (deliberate indifference to known risk states Eighth Amendment claim)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (deliberate indifference requires sufficiently culpable state of mind)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (magistrate judge R&R is a recommendation; district court reviews de novo for objections)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (district court need not de novo review absent specific objections; clear-error standard)
- Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863 (due-process rights of pretrial detainees at least equal to Eighth Amendment protections)