Martin v. Hard
1:21-cv-00230
S.D. Ala.Apr 6, 2022Background
- Plaintiff (death-row inmate) originally sued Officer Zachary S. Hard for failing to prevent a September 28, 2019 inmate assault that left Plaintiff with deep wrist and finger injuries requiring surgery.
- Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis and later filed an Amended Petition adding Lt. Darryl McMillian (alleged spraying with a fire extinguisher on October 18, 2021) and Dr. Jared Burkett (alleged negligent surgical treatment of a dislocated/pulled fifth digit on October 1, 2019).
- The Magistrate screened the Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) and found joinder problems because the added claims arise from distinct occurrences and raise different legal questions.
- The Magistrate also evaluated the merits of the McMillian claim (retaliation and Eighth Amendment excessive force) and found the retaliation allegations conclusory and lacking causal link; the force claim was not plausibly malicious/sadistic given the circumstances.
- For Dr. Burkett, the Magistrate treated the claim as medical malpractice (not the same transaction as the original § 1983 failure-to-protect claim) and noted that negligent medical care generally does not state an Eighth Amendment violation.
- Recommendation: deny the Amended Petition’s joinder of Lt. McMillian and Dr. Burkett, open two new actions (one for each), and place copies of the Amended Petition and this R&R in each new file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper joinder under Rule 20 | Amend to add McMillian and Burkett to this suit | Claims arise from separate occurrences and lack common questions | Joinder denied; new separate actions recommended |
| Retaliation (McMillian sprayed with extinguisher) | Spraying was in retaliation for filing suit against Hard and threats; caused eye injury | Spraying was a response to an in-cell fire and/or discipline; no allegation McMillian knew of the suit | Retaliation claim dismissed as vague/conclusory and lacking causal connection |
| Eighth Amendment excessive force (McMillian) | Spraying the extinguisher into face constituted excessive force causing injury | Use of extinguisher could be reasonable to restore order or ensure safety | Eighth Amendment claim not plausibly pleaded (force could be justified; injuries and facts do not show malicious/sadistic use) |
| Medical care / deliberate indifference (Burkett) | Burkett failed to relocate/fix pinky after surgery, causing permanent impairment | Claim alleges medical negligence; distinct from failure-to-protect theory against Hard | Joinder denied; malpractice claim does not raise the same transaction or common legal questions; recommended opened as separate case; negligence alone not Eighth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force inquiry focuses on whether force was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm or in good-faith to restore discipline)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (de minimis uses of force that cause no discernible injury normally do not state an Eighth Amendment claim)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (factors for excessive-force review include need for force, relationship between need and amount used, and extent of injury)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (standard for deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice or negligence does not, by itself, constitute an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants remain subject to federal procedural rules)