299 F. Supp. 3d 618
M.D. Penn.2018Background
- Inmate Walter Rodriguez, diabetic and on insulin, alleges PA Leonard Potter assaulted him during an August 11, 2012 medical encounter at USP-Lewisburg, then later verbally harassed and (allegedly) administered medication to Rodriguez while he was in SHU.
- Potter, CO David Eichner, and Lt. Daniel Knapp give conflicting accounts; OIA investigator sustained physical abuse and unprofessional conduct findings against Potter.
- Rodriguez was placed in administrative segregation/SHU shortly after the incident and remained in restrictive confinement across facilities for a total of 165 days (91 days at Lewisburg), alleging harsh cell conditions (overcrowding, pests, heat, continuous lighting, limited showers and no recreation) and a “campaign of harassment.”
- Claims asserted (after partial dismissal): Eighth Amendment excessive force (Potter); failure to protect / failure to intervene (Eichner, Knapp); Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement (multiple defendants); retaliation and access-to-courts claims (various defendants); due process challenge to SHU placement (Fosnot).
- On summary judgment the court: granted summary judgment for Defendants Thomas, McClintock, Crawley, and Fosnot; denied summary judgment as to Potter (excessive force), Eichner and Knapp (failure to intervene/protect); allowed retaliation claim to proceed only against Potter; granted summary judgment on conditions, access-to-courts, and due process claims for the remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force by PA Potter on Aug. 11, 2012 | Potter grabbed, forcibly injected, slapped/pushed Rodriguez and threw a sandwich; conduct was malicious and not medical necessity | Potter contends treatment was appropriate, any contact was to assist an unresponsive inmate; denies excessive force and disputes injuries | Genuine factual disputes exist; summary judgment denied as to Potter; claim proceeds to trial |
| Failure to protect / intervene (Eichner, Knapp) | Eichner and Knapp were present or nearby, observed Potter’s hostility/force and failed to stop it | Defendants say they lacked opportunity, were not personally involved, or did not witness the acts | Material disputes about knowledge and opportunity to intervene; summary judgment denied as to Eichner and Knapp |
| Conditions of confinement in SHU (multiple defendants) | Overcrowded cell, pests, heat, constant light, limited showers, no recreation for 91 days amounted to Eighth Amendment deprivation | Defendants: conditions do not show serious harm, no evidence of deliberate indifference or personal involvement | Plaintiff failed to show an objectively serious deprivation or deliberate indifference; summary judgment granted for defendants on conditions claims |
| Retaliation / access to courts / due process (placement in SHU and conduct there) | Rodriguez was placed and kept in SHU in retaliation for seeking counsel/grieving Potter; SHU restrictions impeded legal access; inadequate process for prolonged administrative segregation | Defendants: placement was protective and investigatory; no actual injury to legal claims; no atypical, significant hardship; lack of personal involvement by many defendants | Retaliation claim permitted only against Potter (disputed facts about harassment and treatment in SHU); access-to-courts and due process claims dismissed for lack of actual injury or atypical hardship; summary judgment for other defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force standard: malicious and sadistic to cause harm; de minimis force excluded)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment failure to protect standard; deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (factors for evaluating force by prison officials)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest inquiry for administrative segregation; "atypical and significant hardship" test)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and genuine dispute standards for summary judgment)