125 F. Supp. 3d 285
D. Mass.2015Background
- Rico Perry, an inmate at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC), repeatedly refused assignments to double-bunked cells on March 18–20, 2010; DOC staff attempted to force compliance, using extraction teams, restraints, and OC (pepper spray).
- Video and incident records document three extraction events: March 18 (with cellmate Williams), March 19 (with cellmate Fanfan), and early March 20 (continued placement and restraint incidents).
- Nurses and mental-health staff assessed Perry multiple times; medical staff generally cleared him and performed decontamination after OC exposure; Perry complained of asthma and wrist injuries but did not seek hospital care.
- Defendants sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations: failure to protect, excessive force, supervisory liability, and deliberate indifference to medical needs.
- Court found no evidence staff knew Perry had a documented enemy relationship with his assigned cellmates; DOC relied on institutional double-bunking policy and active monitoring after placements.
- Ruling summary: summary judgment granted for most defendants and claims; excessive-force claim survived only as to Sgt. Farley; medical-care claim against Nurse Maynard and supervisory/failure-to-protect claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to protect (placement with cellmates) | Perry: double-bunking placed him at substantial risk of harm because he refused and later fought | DOC: no known enemy relationships; policy applied uniformly; staff monitored and promptly intervened | Granted for defendants — no deliberate indifference; placements reasonable given context |
| Excessive force (use of OC) | Perry: OC use was excessive, especially multiple sprays while subdued | DOC: OC used to restore order and stop fights; lawful in context | Denied as to Farley (triable issue re: 5th/6th sprays); granted for other defendants |
| Supervisory liability (Dickhaut, Mendonsa re: double-bunk policy) | Perry: supervisors instituted and enforced a policy of forceful double-bunking despite risk | DOC: policy not deliberately indifferent; considered safety and mental-health needs; prior rulings upheld policy | Granted for supervisors — no policy-level deliberate indifference |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs (Nurse Maynard) | Perry: Maynard failed to provide adequate care for asthma and injuries after OC exposure | Maynard: medical staff evaluated, treated, and cleared Perry repeatedly; no serious unmet medical need | Granted for Maynard — no objective serious-medical-need or subjective deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for prisoner safety claims)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (use-of-force review: malicious/sadistic vs. good-faith discipline)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (factors for excessive-force claims; injury not prerequisite)
- Burrell v. Hampshire County, 307 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (reasonableness/response to risk in prison context)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (U.S. 2010) (significant injury not required for excessive-force claim)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework)
- Skinner v. Cunningham, 430 F.3d 483 (1st Cir. 2005) (applying Whitley/Hudson analysis)
- MacDonald v. Town of Hastham, 745 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2014) (qualified immunity two-part test)
- Stenzel v. Ellis, 916 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1990) (upholding enforcement of prison rules against disruptive inmates)