Steven T. ATWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HART COUNTY, KENTUCKY; Hart County Fiscal Court; Terry Shelton; Jim Stewart; Ronald Riordan; Franklin Turner; Don Kessinger; Bill Cartmill, individually and as Hart County Jailer; Buster Maxey, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Shelby Dixon, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Jason Pedigo, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Greg Gardner, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Alice Cooper Rich, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Tony Fields, individually and as Deputy Jailer; Stanley Murphy; Jerry Ray Gardner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6421
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb. 2, 2005
215
Sandra S. Beckwith, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
OPINION
BECKWITH, Chief District Judge.
This appeal arises from the district court‘s award of summary judgment to the Appellees on claim related to Appellant Atwell‘s brief incarceration in the Hart County Jail in 2000. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.
In April 2000, days after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and polysubstance abuse, Appellant Atwell trespassed onto a golf course near his home. He was arrested and taken to the Hart County Jail, where he was placed in isolation. He acted consistently with his recent diagnoses, and, fearing for Mr. Atwell‘s safety, jail personnel sought an emergency hospitalization order. Upon obtaining the order, jail personnel transported Mr. Atwell to the Western State Hospital.
The transfer was not without event. Appellant Atwell resisted and fought with guards. They used a stun shield and pepper spray to subdue him and to effectuate the transfer. The altercation was recorded on videotape. It resulted in convictions for assault against Mr. Atwell.
Western State Hospital personnel increased the prescribed dosage for the medication being used to treat Mr. Atwell‘s mental illnesses and returned him to the Hart County Jail. There, he was again
After being treated at the Psychiatric Center, Mr. Atwell remained incarcerated for several weeks. His claims relate to the period prior to that treatment, however.
They include claims under
Appellees moved for summary judgment, and the district court concluded that Appellant Atwell had failed to identify evidence in support of any of his claims. The court awarded judgment to the Appellees, prompting this appeal.
The parties are in substantial agreement as regards the applicable legal standards. While Appellant Atwell questions whether the district court chose the correct standard in addressing Appellant‘s claim that he was subjected to excessive force, we have not failed to notice that the district court analyzed the claim in accordance
The district court properly concluded that the evidence of record could not support Appellant Atwell‘s allegation that personnel of the Hart County Jail used excessive force against him in the process of effectuating his transfer to the Western State Hospital. The Appellees’ use of force was necessitated by Mr. Atwell‘s actions, and the evidence demonstrates unequivocally that the force used was only that necessary to maintain control and accomplish the legitimate purpose of moving Mr. Atwell in order to ensure that he received the appropriate medical care. The use of force was not punitive and was objectively reasonable. It did not, therefore, deprive Mr. Atwell of the protections of the Constitution. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10 (1989); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-39 (1979); Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104 (2003).
Appellant Atwell also challenges the district court‘s conclusion that evidence of record could not support a finding that Appellees deprived him of proper medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. While the evidence amply demonstrates that Mr. Atwell had a serious medical need, nothing in the record suggests that the Appellees acted to deprive him of proper medical care for that need. Indeed, to the extent that the medication prescribed for him would have alleviated Mr. Atwell‘s mental health problems, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Appellees attempted to provide the medication to Mr. Atwell. If anyone was responsible for his failure to benefit from the medication, Appellant Atwell was. In light of the one-sided evidence identified by the parties, Mr. Atwell could not have proven deliberate indifference and, therefore, could not have established an Eighth Amendment violation. See Horn by Parks v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 873 (1994). The district court properly awarded Appellees summary judgment with respect to Appellant Atwell‘s claims that the Appellees deprived him of proper medical care.
The Appellant‘s remaining
In order to prove a violation of the ADA and the parallel provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act in the context of detention in a county jail, Appellant Atwell would have been required to estab-
None of the evidence identified by Appellant Atwell in connection with his disability discrimination claims would have supported a finding that his mental impairments impose permanent or long-term limitations on any major life activity. The evidence that Mr. Atwell‘s impairments may be corrected or mitigated by medication is not disputed and, in this case, precludes his establishing that his impairments substantially limit him in a major life activity. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). The district court did not err, therefore, in granting summary judgment to Appellees with respect to Appellant Atwell‘s claims under the ADA and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.
Appellant Atwell also asserted claims under Kentucky law for assault and battery, outrage, and infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Appellees summary judgment with respect to each of those claims.
Under Kentucky law, the torts of outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress are premised upon extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing emotional distress. See Craft v. Rice, 671 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Ky. 1984). In Appellant Atwell‘s case, the same evidentiary defects that prevent his establishing liability under the United States Constitution for his injuries also precludes recovery for outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Having concluded that the actions of the Hart County Jail personnel that are the basis of Appellant Atwell‘s assault and battery claim were objectively reasonable in the
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court‘s grant of summary judgment to Appellees on all of Appellant Atwell‘s claims.
BECKWITH
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE