SCHULTZ v. HANSEN, CHAFFEE, BEEBE (W.D.Mich. 2000)

HON. DAVID W. McKEAGUE

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an opinion dated January 3, 2000, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on both plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and his retaliation claim, and awarded judgment to defendants. Now before the Court is plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion will be granted with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, and this case shall be remanded to the magistrate judge for further consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility, was involved in an altercation with defendants, correctional officers, as they escorted him from his cell to the yard on February 15, 1998. Plaintiff's hands were handcuffed behind his back while he was being escorted.

The parties dispute the events that followed. Plaintiff alleges defendant Hansen first told him that he (Hansen) had heard about a complaint filed by Hansen against the warden, and then Hansen and Chaffee began to beat plaintiff. Specifically, in paragraph numbered 6 under his claim of Misuse of Force and Retaliation," plaintiff avers:

Then he [plaintiff] was thrown to the ground by defendants Hansen and Chaffee. Where they continued to beat plaintiff and defendant Hansen started slamming defendant's [sic] face into the ground repeatedly untill [sic] the concrete floor dislocated plaintiffs [sic] jaw. Then Chaffee and Hansen continued to strike plaintiff untill [sic] the sergeant came.

Disputing this version of events, defendants claim plaintiff kicked Hansen, and in response, Hansen and Chaffee brought plaintiff to the ground where he was shackled and returned to his cell. After defendants filed incident reports, plaintiff was charged with a major misconduct and a hearing was held. Defendants' version of events was accepted by the hearing officer and plaintiff was found guilty of major misconduct for assaulting defendant Hansen by kicking him.

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff argues principally that the Court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on his Eighth Amendment claim based solely on his major misconduct conviction before the prison hearing officer. In the Court's opinion filed January 3, 2000, the Court awarded summary judgment to defendants on both plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim and his retaliation claim relying onHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) as extended to an adverse prison misconduct conviction by Shelly v. Johnson, 684 F. Supp. 941 (W.D.Mich. 1987), aff'd 849 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1988). With respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim, the Court's holds to its original opinion. Initially, the Court notes plaintiff fails to address any arguments to his retaliation claim in his motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, under the standard enunciated by the Sixth Circuit in Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999), and applied by the Court in its January 3, 2000, opinion, plaintiff's misconduct conviction bars his claim. To the extent defendants' use of force was an adverse action, it was in response to an assault initiated by plaintiff, rather than as a result of plaintiff having engaged in protected conduct. In line with well-established precedent, the Court refuses to disturb the finding made at the misconduct hearing that plaintiff initiated the altercation with defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish a causal nexus as required by the Thaddeus-X standard, as any adverse action taken by defendants against plaintiff was not motivated by an intent to retaliate against protected conduct.

Turning to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, however, the Court finds plaintiff's motion is well-taken. In both his original complaint and his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff contends defendants engaged in the excessive use of force after the officers had taken plaintiff to the ground. Mot. Alt. or Amd. at 11. "A finding that defendants used excessive force in restraining plaintiff would not necessarily be incompatible with the earlier finding that plaintiff had initiated the altercation by assaulting the defendant officers. It is conceivable, even plausible, that both circumstances may have occurred. It follows that success on plaintiff's excessive force claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of the assault conviction." Maurice Erby, #164580 v. Robert Struble, No. 1:98-CV-597, mem. op. at 5 (W.D.Mich. July 2, 1999). Accordingly, the Court finds that granting summary judgment to defendant solely on this ground was premature.

For the forgoing reasons, plaintiff's motion will be granted with respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim. Although the Court will grant plaintiff's motion in part, the Court does not express an opinion as to the merits of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, which were not originally considered by the Court. Accordingly, an order consistent with this opinion shall issue remanding this case to the magistrate judge for further consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.

Dated: May 5, 2000

In accordance with the Court's memorandum opinion of even date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is GRANTED with respect to plaintiff's claim that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., for further consideration of defendants' arguments in support of their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, as well as plaintiff's motion to introduce evidence. (Dkt. No. 46).

DAVID W. McKEAGUE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE