Wally Boone v. C. D. Everett
671 F. App'x 864
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Wally Boone, a prisoner proceeding pro se, sued Officer C.D. Everett and Sergeant L. Rodriguez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force.
- Boone alleges Everett slammed his head into a wall, threw him to the floor, jumped on him, and choked him until unconsciousness.
- Boone alleges Rodriguez dragged him to medical while threatening to drop him and left his genitals exposed.
- District court granted summary judgment for both defendants; Boone appealed. He did not challenge dismissal of his deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Sidi (exhaustion issue) and thus waived review of that ruling.
- The Fourth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, crediting noncontradicted evidence and not resolving genuine factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Everett used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment | Everett slammed and choked Boone; Boone submitted his affidavit, grievances, and three inmate affidavits corroborating the assault | Everett denied the physical assault; district court relied on defendants’ account and granted summary judgment | Vacated and remanded: genuine dispute of material fact exists; district court erred by failing to credit Boone’s evidence and view facts in his favor |
| Whether Rodriguez used excessive force (dragging, threat, exposure) | Boone alleges Rodriguez dragged him, threatened to drop him, and left genitals exposed; one witness affidavit observed dragging but did not identify the officer | Rodriguez submitted an affidavit denying wrongdoing and met the initial summary judgment showing | Affirmed: Boone produced only conclusory allegations and insufficient evidence to create a factual dispute on subjective or objective Eighth Amendment elements |
| Standard for reviewing summary judgment evidence that conflicts | Boone argues district court ignored his affidavits and grievances, which cannot be rejected absent blatant contradiction | Defendants relied on their own affidavit/evidence to rebut Boone’s account | Court reiterated that Tolan/Scott require crediting nonblatantly contradicted evidence and remanded where district court failed to apply the correct standard |
| Appointment of counsel request | Boone sought counsel | Defendants opposed | Denied at this stage: court found materials adequate for resolution without oral argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force subjective intent standard)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment objective severity and factors for malicious/sadistic inquiry)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (court may adopt moving party’s version when record blatantly contradicts nonmoving party)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (summary judgment review must credit nonmovant’s evidence when not blatantly contradicted)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmovant must produce evidence beyond pleadings to defeat summary judgment)
- Core Commc’ns, Inc. v. Verizon Md. LLC, 744 F.3d 310 (Fourth Circuit summary judgment de novo standard)
- Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645 (conclusory allegations/mere scintilla insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756 (Eighth Amendment requires subjective culpability and objective injury)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (clarifies use of force Eighth Amendment analysis)