*1 еxpedited hearing allowing without Massey sufficient for discovery time
determine Massey whether the Contract
was indeed by terminated Horizon’s other contractual dealings. Stephen JARRIETT, Plaintiff- concluded, however, that, Both courts Appellant, despite rejection the debtor’s Contract,
Franklin Horizon remained obli- al., Julius WILSON et gated Defendants- provide coal to Carolina Power Appellees. Light pursuant to the amended Mar- Moreover, rowbone Contract. because No. 03-4196. Horizon’s contractual responsibilities un- United Appeals, Stаtes Court of Massey der the Contract remained un- Sixth Circuit. changed, Massey’s position economic in way by no affected those other contracts July 7, 2005. Massey which was not even a party. court, Massey
Before this again raises allegations argued of error
bankruptcy court and to the district court. examining
After on appeal the record parties, briefs of the we conclude that
the district court correctly analyzed and
decided the issues before it on appeal from
the bankruptcy court. theAs reasons un-
derlying the district court ruling have been articulated,
adequately the issuance of
full opinion by written this court would be
duplicative and would no pur- serve useful
pose. Accordingly, we judg- AFFIRM the bankruptcy
ment upon court
reasoning set out the district court in
its Opinion Memorandum filed on June *3 Carro, Akron, OH,
J. Dean for Plaintiff- Appellant.
Kelley General, A. Sweeney, Atty. Asst. General, Attorney Cleveland, Office of the OH, Marti, General, Atty. Todd R. Asst. Office of the Attorney General Corrections Section, Columbus, OH, Litigation for De- fendants-Appellees. GIBBONS,
Before: MOORE and EDMUNDS, Judges; Circuit District Judge.* GIBBONS, SMITH JULIA Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Jarriett, Stephen an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Insti- (TCI), placed tution in a “strip cage” was segregation the TCI unit for twelve brought hours. claim Jarriett under § against prison U.S.C. various guards and officials their individual and capacities, alleging official that the defen- dants violated his rights by acting with deliberate indiffer- to his ence serious medical needs period strip cage. De- Hurst, Captain fendants Haril Lieutenant Franklin, Nicholson, Dan Kenneth Stanley summary Klatka filed a motion Edmunds, Nancy Michigan, sitting by designation. *The Honorable G. United Judge States District for the Eastern District They there. stored food had ed Jarriett granted. district court which the judgment, next to Nichol- strip him in a placed the district arguing that appeals, strip. While him to ordered (1) son’s and finding in: court erred fully com- that he claimed later requisite physical could not establish strip, the officers 1997e(e) the order bring plied with § injury under 42 U.S.C. (2) and Nicholson testified that both damages; claim for their or- promptly with comply refused to are entitled holding that the defendants stripped, gang-related As Jarriett immunity. set ders. For the reasons qualified suit. jump below, picture was discovered affirm the district court’s forth we took off all Evidently, eventually men both decision. clothes, the officers although of their *4 I. whole go through not the they did claimed which consists procedure, “stripping out” TCI, in Jarriett, at placed an inmate was and through their hair running fingers fighting unit for prison’s segregation the body of the so exposing parts all other segrega- inmate. with another While for contra- inspect the inmates officers can to tion, hunger a strike Jarriett went on during this Klatka said that band. Officer prison conditions. Jarriett protest various Quentin Nicholson Nicholson, time both Jarriett cellmate, Quentin a who had officers, him other cursing at and the were “strip to a required was eat his meals as attitude and he described Jarriett’s unit so he would cage” segregation crude, rude, defiant, angry.” Jar- “cocky, any to the pass food “horsing around” with is admitted to cage A a mesh riett hunger strip strike. Nicholson, claimed that he Quentin through a small hоle which but cage steel with steps stripping the of the complied be with all passed.1 clothes or other items can procedure. out 26, 2000, Quentin August Nicholson On reported in a Klatka and Nicholson placed removed from his cell and Officers was two inmates to being to in- the recalcitrance of the strip cage eat dinner. After supervisor, their shift who informed them formed desk officer that Nicholson supervi- shift’s jumpsuit, pre- that he let the next placing was cornbread in would situation. At about the sumably in order to take it to Jar- sor know of the back riett, on the Stanley the next shift’s officers came correctional officers Klatka time scene, laundry Quentin pushed a cart of porter Kenneth Nicholson ordered Jar- cages, the inmates’ so that both strip. officers also con- near Nicholson clothing and Nicholson could obtain They pulled fiscated the cornbread. then riett cell, Officers Daniel Franklin they suspeet- and blankets. Jarriett out of since Nicholson, placed Quentin was in a who to asсertain from the record mate It difficult big many precisely cages thought cages larger cage, how are that he testified how size, there were. Jarriett claimed one of them adding "[y]ou can same were the bigger placed two and in was no than he was and touch all the reach from arm to arm only square and he could sit a half feet know, sides, you you can touch both side position” by "ballfing] "cramping down in very and it's not It's not wide all [sic]. up.” Jarriett also said that other himself the in- big.” Defendant Hurst asserted that but cage was next the smaller ... the floor and mates could "sit down on larger, square, that an around five feet Also, any cages. up” in of the not be boxed one. Defen- could lie down in that inmate Stanley claimed there defendant Klatka while Nicholson confirmed that dant Kenneth 2000, Quentin cages August were three cages of different sizes and that Jarriett only recalled two. Nicholson cage. placed Jarriett's cell- smaller was Hurst, and Harold incoming shift trying su- Feels like it’s In response to bust.” pervisors, went the unit to evaluate the question, “Did that you physi- cause evening, situation later in the at which well?,” pain answered, cal ‘Yes. point they found Jarriett and Nicholson to I couldn’t—I forcing myself. was I sit____ officers, be clothed. According to these stand, yet, couldn’t I but couldn’t again fully inmates comply refused small, cell too Because the was and then stripping with the procedure, out even sit, I when get would I would severe though they Hurst and Franklin told them cramps my thighs.” He also testified could return to their upon completion cell that his really “veins were like ugly.” procedure. Hurst and Franklin had Klatka testified that Jarriett mentioned been told that the inmates had never com- bad but that Klatka did not see pleted the procedure. Eventually, Nichol- swelling and that Jarriett “jumping was complied son with the procedure and went around, know, you around, messing run- hours, back to his cell. After about twelve ning know, cage, back and forth in the you let out of the cage and sent to turning circles.” Officer Nicholson also a cell in segregation unit without testified that the officers offered to put cellmate. larger cage but that Jarriett *5 Jarriett deposition testified his that Quentin and Nicholson not did want during the entire time he cage was switch. Hurst described the inmates’ he made clear all the officers that he physical “uncomfortable,” they state as but had a leg bad and should be standing.2 not blankets, did have which Hurst chose Jarriett claimed that repeatedly he asked though remove even the blankets were if he could see a doctor leg because of his Jarriett, prohibited. evidently who stood pain, but Franklin testified that Jarriett for almost all of the time he was in the anything, did not ask for complain about cage, told Hurst that he a “no had stand- legs, his or ask to see medical staff. waiver,” ing and suggested Hurst that Jar- Specifically, “Captain Jarriett said he told: riett sit down or strip out so that he could Hurst, Franklin, Lieutenant Mr. Nichol- cage.3 leave the Klatka and Kenneth Ni- son, Klatka, Mr. the desk Any- officer. cholson they stated that checked Jarriett’s body I could have that at would listen records, they medical but on nothing found point my leg swelling when started up.” file regarding lega condition that would Franklin, Jarriett indicated that he “I told him from preclude remaining strip need to see a doctor. I’m in pain terrible cage. Franklin was likewise unaware of My leg big .... is grapefruit as as a and any medical condition might Jarriett have my toes have no sensation.” Jarriett de- had that would aggravated by have been right leg scribed his at the end of the tune prolonged standing. he was swollen “like grapefruit” from his knee down to his an- The .record inci- indicаtes after the “My boom, boom, leg just dent, kle: boom. on August Jarriett was seen incarcerated, being 2. sports participation Before Jarriett suffered later received a restric- accident, tion, motorcycle although inju- medically which resulted in he was cleared for TCI, right leg ries to his and food at ankle. of service work Because accident, running there is a metal rod from right his knee to his ankle. The accident was Marilyn 3. TCI Health Care Administrator screening noted on Jarriett's medical sheet Lane stated in an affidavit "[a]t no time TCI, point when he prolonged standing' arrived at which he did Jarriett have 'no was by physician restricted to the bottom bunk. restriction ordered at TCI.'' by acting with rights Eighth Amendment complaint only staff. His by medical TCI to his medi- indifference serious deliberate at that time concerned to medical staff he was during period cal needs again was seen hunger strike. declaratory requested 29, 2000, strip cage. Jarriett there August but medical staff on compensa- injunctive relief as well as he and in his records that are no indications January damages.5 On tory Sep- punitive right leg. On complained about 29, 2002, agreed the exercise examined, parties 1, 2000, again was tember he Magis- States jurisdiction by the United this ex- testified to 28 U.S.C. Judge pursuant trate “definitely mentioned” amination 636(c).6 services of Jarriett secured the him, leg bothering right fact that his was February On in October 2002. counsel though any- it “not even swollen agreed stipulated to a parties examining physician noted more.”4 of Jar- prejudice of dismissal with swollen, notice mildly but toе was left Wilson, Green, against riett’s claims Curtis that the color and sensation to both feet Green. later, and Adrian “adequate.” weeks on Two medical again saw September Nicholson, Hurst, Franklin, Defendants staff, having complained pain about summary judgment and Klatka moved for right ankle. The doctor noted Jarriett’s grant- court May The district on feeling “complaints pain and loss Jar- August on ed the motion 8-26, swelling, and and foot since September on appealed to this court riett His days away.” went swelling later 9,2003. limpy. gаit was described as slow II. range
Jarriett’s of motion was limited *6 toes, his right and but Jarriett “said grant summary A district court’s of x-rays injury.” is He had taken of this old Terry novo. judgment is reviewed de foot, leg, ankle, inju- no and but Co., Inc. v. All-Lock Agency, Barr Sales or conditions other than those attrib- ries (6th Cir.1996). 174, The court 178 acci- pre-incarceration utable to Jarriett’s rea- must evidence and draw all “view the dent were discovered. light inferences therefrom sonable non-moving party.” in a the most favorable pro complaint filed se Co., Exploration BP & 265 for the Little v. Oil United States District Court Cir.2001). (6th 357, Summary 361 September District of Ohio on F.3d Northern 12, Klatka, pleadings, if “the 2001, appropriate is bringing against judgment claims Hurst, Franklin, interrogatories, Nicholson, depositions, answers to Kenneth War- file, Wilson, with the together and on and correctional officers admissions den Julius is no affidavits, any, if there He sued show Curtis Adrian Green. Green genuine as to material fact their individual and offi- issue the defendants to a 1983, moving party § 42 al- is entitled capacities under U.S.C. cial Fed. as a matter of law.” judgment violated leging that defеndants moot, testimony was released since Jarriett seemed to indicate in his lief were September filing complaint. 1 was his first visit We that the visit thus from TCI after occurred, stating: 1997e(e) § the doctor after the incident 42 U.S.C. need not decide whether it, fact, days “As a matter of what three seeking injunctive relief. applies to claims later,.. seeing just a doctor.” .I’m now judge magistrate opinion refers to the 6. This argument, counsel con- At oral Jarriett’s the district court. injunctive re- that Jarriett’s claims for ceded 400 56(c). (6th Cir.2002) If moving 753,
R.Civ.P. party Fed.Appx. (citing estab 755 an absence of support lishes evidence Siglar Luong finding that two small case, the nonmoving party’s the “nonmov and minor bruises cuts were de minimis ing party has the coming burden of for McGinnis, injury); Styles v. 28 Fed.Appx. with raising (6th ward evidence 362, Cir.2001) triable issue Siglar); 364 (citing * McKay Toyota fact.” v. Mfg., Carlton, Motor 1175609, v. Benson 2000 at WL 1012, (E.D.Ky.1995). 878 F.Supp. 1013 If 1, (6th 21202, 2000 U.S.App. LEXIS at *3 jury reasonable could not return ver 9, 2000), Aug. Cir. (citing Siglar finding nonmoving dict for the on party the basis prisoner’s “whirling sensation” in favor, the evidence as construed in its missing head after a meal was de minimis summary judgment granted should be McMillian, injury); see also Hudson v. the movant. v. Kiefer, See Burchett 310 1, 9-10, 503 U.S. 112 117 S.Ct. (6th Cir.2002). F.3d 942 (1992) 156 (holding L.Ed.2d that “cruel punishment necessarily and unusual ex-
A. from recognition cludes constitutional de force”) Litigation Prison Reform physical (quotation minimis uses of Act states that omitted); Federal civil action “[n]o and citation id. at 112 cf. may brought by prisoner be confined in a (finding “bruises, 995 S.Ct. swelling, jail, prison, facility, teeth, or other correctional plate” loosened and a cracked dental injury mental or emotional suffered beating by sufferеd as the result of a custody prior showing while without a of prison guards inju- were not de minimis 1997e(e). ries). § physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. This applies statute The district court did not err conclud- claims for emotional or damages mental ing that Jarriett did not present sufficient Davis, such as Jarriett’s.7 Grissom v. 55 1997e(e) evidence to meet the standard. (6th Fed.Appx. Cir.2003); Lucas If injury Jarriett did suffer an when he Nichols, *1, v. 1999 WL strip cage was confined to the for twelve (6th U.S.App. Apr. LEXIS at *5 Cir. 27, 2000, on August hours 26 and
23, 1999), ; Siglar Hightower, see permit evidence does not it finding that (5th Cir.1997). F.3d This court *7 was more than de minimis. has indicated in unpublished opinions that though physical injury required even testified in deposition his 1997e(e) §by § for a claim August 1983 need not his 26 and 27 confinement significant, swollen, be it must cage, very be more than de leg became minimis for an grapefruit,” pain Amendment claim “like a that he suffered See, go e.g., to standing, forward. Adams v. Rocka while and that he had severe 584, (6th fellow, Fed.Appx. 66 cramps thighs 586 Cir. in his when he to tried sit. 2003) 193, (citing 112 Siglar, F.3d and No supports other evidence Jarriett’s Hatt, 1997e(e) Luong injury § v. of F.Supp. physical pur- 979 485 claim for (N.D.Tex.1997)); Tеssmer, Corsetti v. 41 poses. Other uncontroverted evidence in Colorado, (10th argument Jarriett's counsel at oral con- 218 F.3d 1210 n. 6 Cir.2000) bringing ("Assuming deciding firmed that Jarriett was such without claim, though complained physical physical pain even of constitutes ‘mental or emotional pain 1997e(e)], strip cage. injury’ meaning suffered due his time in the within the of [§ deciding physi- appellant We assume statutory requirement without that such satisfies the pain qualifies prior showing phys- cal as "mental or emotional because he has made a оf 1997e(e). attack.”). injury” § injury, under See also Sealock v. ical i.e. his heart
401 an to visit person “a free world require not evaluating the record relevant room, attend have doctor medical or injury. emergency TCI seriousness of this medi- to, Au- opinion, diagnosis on 27 and August give an staff saw and/or complaint injury”). no Because but he made for the gust cal treatment leg occasion.8 right injury pur- on either a physical about show cannot Sep- again medical staff on 1997e(e), saw the district § we affirm suant that he tembеr 1. Jarriett asserts While on his summary judgment grant of court’s leg on that pain mentioned damages. for claims date, mild the medical record indicates adequate color
swelling of his left toe and B. no for and sensation both feet with need however, if, sup the evidence that his Even treatment. Jarriett concedes Only de minimis September finding on of more than ported was not swollen on September injury, some three weeks after the are entitled to physical defendants confinement, complain did Jarriett immunity, as the district court qualified swelling, staff that he had had medical im qualified whether question found. feeling right leg pain, and loss of re question is a of law munity applies August only medical find- since 26. The Ky. Dep’t v. novo. Flint viewed de ings September on the 15 visit relate Cir.2001). (6th Corr., 346 from previous injuries Jarriett’s the motor- Qualified immunity protects gov
cycle accident. liability ac ernment officials from civil for most to Jar- light Cast favorable their official discretion tions taken within riett, merely the evidence shows Jar- insofar these actions do not violаte pain, cramps, swelling, riett had which or clearly statutory constitu established enough to mention to serious official rights tional of which a reasonable day of his medical staff the release from would have been aware. See Harlow strip cage days which two later and 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. produced findings point no at the medical (1982). 2727, 73 396 It is not L.Ed.2d claims at which Jarriett to have mentioned rather, merely liability; when a defense to 1 September them to staff on and 15. immunity applicable, protects qualified nothing This сonstitutes more than de and, government from lawsuits officials 1997e(e). § injury purposes minimis for hence, litigation. See Sau the burdens 112 Siglar, (finding See F.3d at 193 Katz, 194, 200-01, cier v. U.S. prisoner alleged who that he had bruised (2001). To S.Ct. 150 L.Ed.2d 1997e(e) days ear three did not meet qualified immunity, official must assert an standard); Luong, F.Supp. at 485-86 *8 acted within her first demonstrate that she (finding that minor abrasions on the fore- discretionary authority. See Gardenhire chest, a slight arm and contusion with (6th Schubert, 303, v. 205 F.3d 311 Cir. jaw, wrist, of the a swollen cuts on swelling 2000). the makes this show tongue, bloody nose Once official the face and and only injuries ing, plaintiff the shifts to the were de minimis because burden they types injuries prove right the that would that the officer violated a so were rather, deposition, strip cage; response point At indi- the the overall one every referring pre- to his that he time he reveals that Jarriett cates mentions injury goes suggestion in rather than an exacer- to the doctor. There is no incarceration by standing deposition testimony injury prolonged the that this relates to bation of thаt injuty cage. complaints strip the about from his confinement
402
clearly
established that
reasonable of-
by prison
ence is manifested
doctors in
position
ficial in her
would have under-
response
prisoner’s
their
needs or
stood it
engage
was unlawful to
by
the
prison guards in intentionally deny-
conduct that
right.
violated the
In
Id.
the
ing or.delaying
access medical care or
case,
present
Jarriett does not
that
dispute
intentionally interfering with the treat-
the defendants
acting
within their
prescribed.
ment once
Regardless of
authority
officers,
facility
correctional
evidenced,
how
deliberate indifference to
so the burden shifts to Jarriett
to over-
a prisoner’s
injury
serious illness or
qualified
come the
immunity defense.
§
states
cause of action under
97, 104-05,
285,
429 U.S.
97 S.Ct.
50
This court evaluates this burden
(1976) (citation
L.Ed.2d 251
according
and
three-prong
footnotes
standard. See
omitted).
Mehra,
(6th
685,
Williams v.
deliberate
186 F.3d
indifference
691
Cir.1999). First,
standard has
interpreted
been
to require
court considers
plaintiff
whether a
an inmate
statutory
constitutional or
to show
prison
viola
so,
tion
If
official
occurred.
Id.
defendants
court then
acted with a reckless
considers
right
disregard
whether the
of a known risk
was vio
of serious harm
lated
clearly
prisoner.
Brennan,
established
v.
sense
Farmer
511
825,
person
1970,
a reasonable
U.S.
114
would have
S.Ct.
128 L.Ed.2d
(1994).
known
right.
of the
right
Id. The
must
811
The standard includes both
have
“clearly
objective
been
established at the time
subjective
components.
of the
in question.”
First,
actions
v.
Dickerson
deprivation
Eighth
Amend-
McClellan,
(6th
101 F.3d
1158
Cir.
rights
ment
must be “sufficiently serious”
1996).
established,
If
was clearly
prison
such that the
officials’
acts
omis-
step
the court’s third
is to “determine
sions objectively
result
denial
whether the plaintiff
alleged
has
sufficient
“the minimal civilized measure of
ne-
life’s
facts, and supported
allegations by
suf
834,114
cessities.” Id. at
S.Ct.
(quot-
1970
evidence,
ficient
to indicate that what the
Seiter,
ing
294, 298,
Wilson v.
501
111
U.S.
official allegedly
objectively
did was
unrea
(1991),
S.Ct.
403 subjective to the regard With a constitutional violation. he cannot show regard оbjective component, to the that his “lim component, argues With Jarriett delay a in argues that an inmate who have been gait leg condition would py” Eighth amounted to an medical treatment defendants, inter known to who had the place verifying violation Amendment “must before the incident on acted with Jarriett to in establish medical evidence the record that Jarriett asserts August delay.” effect of Na- the detrimental the facts, together telling his with these County, 742 pier v. Madison 238 F.3d waiver” standing he had a “no officеrs that Cir.2001) (6th (quoting Reg’l Hill v. Dekalb in indicate pain, on file and that he was (11th Ctr., 40 Youth Del F.3d 1188 known, disregarded a that the defendants Cir.1994)). supra, As discussed injury risk of to Jarriett substantial support can to no medical to point records in leaving strip cage. him the Jarriett’s he a argument his that suffered “sufficient- argument merit. The officers is without ly injury serious” for action to on Jar took reasonable check to purposes give when the officers refused leg when his riett’s records he mentioned during him in medical treatment his time in they found no indication his injury, and striр cage. medical evidence a file that he could not stand for sustained being indicates that re- record after strip cage. Even if period of time in cage, from the did not men- leased in they previous were aware of Jarriett’s leg tion the pain to doctor until jury from a review of his files or from Also, September 1. while he claims that he him, they prior with had no interaction leg to complained defendants about he could not be reason believe that cage, his time Jarriett cer- for plaсed strip cage a twelve-hour any not tainly did exhibit medical needs addition, period. In Jarriett could fact lay person “so obvious that even a would periods, for short albeit in a sit necessity easily recognize doc- Furthermore, position. it should cramped attention.” Gaudreault v. tor’s Munici- (1st Salem, pality 208 only that the officers be noted did of Cir.1990). Crucially, there is no evidence clear to Jarriett could return make any to indicate that Jarriett showed swell- completed cell if he out stripping ing of If the officers. evi- procedure, they put also but offered dence indicated that the saw the officers larger cage. He refused their swelling leg, then Jarriett’s offer. stronger summary would have a case Put Jarriett cannot show delib- simply, However, judgment inappropriate. was part on the of the de- erate indifference depiction even when one Jarriett’s credits He cannot meet his fendants. therefore events, no reasonable corrections officer showing burden of constitutional vi- could have concluded Jarriett was be- olation occurred. Defendants are entitled ing denied “the minimal civilized measure qualified immunity,9 and the district Farmer, of life’s 511 at necessities.” U.S. Rhodes, summary grant judgment court’s was (quoting 452 S.Ct. 2392). 347,101 appropriate. U.S. S.Ct. out, plaintiff deprived constitu- pointed the district court since there dants As violation, right, against no offi- official-capacity constitutional Jarriett’s tional claim cial-capacity claims also fail. See Scott entity represented by public those оfficer- (6th Cir.2000) County, Clay F.3d fail). also must defendants (concluding that if none of the officer-defen- *10 (as
III.
applied
through
states
the Fourteenth Amendment
reasons,
For
foregoing
affirm
we
Clause)
Due
prohibits
Process
“unneces-
district court’s decision.
sary and
of pain,”
wanton infliction
Whit-
MOORE,
KAREN
Albers,
NELSON
312,
Circuit
ley
v.
475 U.S.
106 S.Ct.
Judge, dissenting.
(1986),
Instead, majority repeatedly credits
witnesses for despite contrary the officers by Quentin
assertions made Jarriett and
Nicholson Taking under oath. facts
the light Jarriett, most favorable to we
must conclude that he was forced stand
in a by two-and-a-half-foot two-and-a-half-
foot for approximately thirteen hours (naked hours, for the eight first to ten America, UNITED STATES of sit
unable to thirty forty more than Plaintiff-Appellee, time), minutes of the total pain, acute clear, swelling with portion visible leg previously injured that had been Stanley CORNELL, Pomales, Norman motorcycle time, During accident.10 this Appellants. Defendants — repeatedly requested to see a doc- 04-3672, Nos. 04-3791. regard injured
tor in to his but his leg, requests ignored. He was not even United of Appeals, States Court examined until nurse at least three Sixth Circuit. days incident, after the and was never Jan. actually given opportunity put to be larger cage. These events resulted in more physical injury, than de minimis see McMillian, 1, 9-10,
Hudson v. 503 U.S. (1992),
112 S.Ct.
including excruciating physical pain and swelling
severe of his that would be lay
obvious even to a person. As it was
clearly established at the time that tall, approximately years weighed
10. Jarriett was pounds. old at time, stood five-feet-ten-and-a-half inches