Roy Burns v. Edward Eaton
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9596
8th Cir.2014Background
- On July 2, 2010, inmate Roy Don Burns refused orders to "catch the cuffs" and return to his cell after showering in a locked isolation shower; Sgt. Eaton warned Burns he would be pepper-sprayed if he did not comply.
- Burns threw objects and spat at Eaton; Eaton deployed limited bursts of pepper spray after warnings.
- Burns alleges Eaton sprayed him maliciously and that Cpl. Renita White turned off the shower water on Eaton’s instruction, preventing decontamination for ~10–15 minutes.
- Burns filed a unit-level grievance complaining only about Eaton’s conduct; the grievance was denied on the merits and Burns was disciplined.
- Burns sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force (Eighth Amendment) against Eaton and deliberate indifference to medical needs against Eaton and White.
- The district court granted summary judgment: Eaton entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force and delayed-decontamination claims; claims against White dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eaton used excessive force (Eighth Amendment) by pepper-spraying Burns after warnings | Burns: Eaton sprayed him maliciously and sadistically, not to restore discipline | Eaton: He warned Burns and used limited spray to restore order against a recalcitrant, combative inmate | Court: No genuine dispute of malicious intent; use was a measured, penological response—summary judgment for Eaton affirmed |
| Whether Eaton was deliberately indifferent for preventing/delaying decontamination | Burns: Eaton instructed White to shut off water, causing unnecessary pain/medical need | Eaton: He left to report the incident, was barred from returning, and was not responsible for monitoring decontamination; Burns did not show a serious medical need | Court: Deliberate-indifference standard not met; qualified immunity applies to Eaton |
| Whether Burns exhausted administrative remedies as to White | Burns: ADC decided his pepper-spray grievance on the merits, so exhaustion satisfied as to all involved | Defendants/ADC: Grievance rules require naming individuals; Burns’s grievance did not name White or allege denial of decontamination | Court: Failure to name White was not a mere procedural flaw; claims against White were unexhausted and dismissed |
| Burden for defeating qualified immunity on summary judgment when intent matters | Burns: Alleged facts and declarations show malicious intent | Defendants: Qualified immunity protects unless plaintiff identifies affirmative evidence of malicious motive | Court: Plaintiff must present affirmative evidence of motive; Burns failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (Eighth Amendment inquiry: force applied in good-faith to maintain/restore discipline vs. malicious/sadistic to cause harm)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive-force standard reiterating Whitley; focus on malicious or sadistic intent)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standard contrasted with Eighth Amendment intent focus)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established rights)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (plaintiff must identify affirmative evidence of motive when intent is element and defendant moves for qualified immunity)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion depends on prison’s procedural requirements)
- Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (a grievance decided on the merits can satisfy exhaustion even if procedurally flawed)
- Jones v. Shields, 207 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2000) (limited application of pepper spray to control recalcitrant inmate can be a permissible response)