Mahmoud v. Akima Global Sevices LLC, 1:21-cv-00013

Plaintiff Munther Mahmoud alleges that on June 9, 2016 detention officers at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility violently assaulted him in his cell, causing severe orthopedic and spinal injuries, and that he was thereafter denied proper medical treatment.
Akima Global Services, which operated the facility, moved for summary judgment, submitting security-camera footage of the incident that it says contradicts Mahmoud’s allegations.
The footage (uncontested as authentic) shows two officers entering Mahmoud’s cell for about 15 seconds with the door open, exiting with Mahmoud in handcuffs, and Mahmoud walking without visible distress across the facility.
The United States removed the case and substituted as to two named defendants (ICE employees) under the FTCA and § 1442; removal of the entire action was treated as proper.
Mahmoud’s counsel withdrew; Mahmoud was provided the summary-judgment materials and an extension to respond but did not oppose the motion.
The court treated Mahmoud’s verified complaint as an affidavit but concluded the video conclusively contradicted the core factual allegations and granted summary judgment for Akima and entered judgment for all defendants; it also denied appointment of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper removal and substitution of the United States	Mahmoud asserted state-law tort claims against federal officers (and nonfederal defendants)	U.S. removed and substituted for ICE employees under the FTCA and §1442, arguing entire case removable	Removal and substitution were proper; entire case in federal court
Existence of a genuine dispute on use-of-force and causation	Mahmoud alleges violent, forceful handling causing bilateral shoulder tears, spinal fractures, herniations, radiculopathy, knee tear	Akima submitted video showing no visible violence, officers in cell 15 seconds, Mahmoud mobile and not distressed	No genuine dispute; reasonable jury could not credit Mahmoud’s allegations; summary judgment for defendants
Scope of judgment given only Akima moved for summary judgment	Mahmoud opposed relief; argued facts support claims against all defendants	Akima argued video undermines the core factual basis of all claims	Court exercised discretion to grant judgment as to all defendants sua sponte because Mahmoud had full opportunity to respond
Appointment of counsel for plaintiff	Mahmoud moved for counsel	Opposing parties noted lack of threshold showing and weak case	Denied — plaintiff failed to show the exceptional circumstances needed for appointed counsel

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (establishes summary-judgment standard and reasonable-jury inquiry)
Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (verified complaints treated as affidavits on summary judgment)
Jian Yang Lin v. Shanghai City Corp., 950 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (district court may grant summary judgment sua sponte where party had fair opportunity to respond)
Bradford v. Harding, 284 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1960) (removal by a federal officer removes the entire case)
Akin v. Ashland Chem. Co., 156 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 1998) (removal by a federal defendant ends state-court process as to all parties)
Almenares v. Wyman, 453 F.2d 1075 (2d Cir. 1971) (claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact may be heard in federal court)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (common-nucleus test for ancillary/supplemental jurisdiction)
Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases)