Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jennings v. Mitchell
93 F. App'x 723
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2004-03-12
- Topic
- bankruptcy
holding that a defendant’s use of pepper spray on a prisoner who refused to leave the shower did not violate the Eighth Amendment | holding that officers did not violate an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights when they pepper sprayed him after he refused to obey orders | concluding that officer did not apply excessive force when officer applied chemical spray to inmate who repeatedly refused order to exit shower | holding that the use of pepper spray on an inmate who repeatedly disobeyed direct orders to leave the shower did not violate the inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights | holding that the use of pepper spray on an inmate who repeatedly disobeyed direct orders to leave the shower did not violate the inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights | holding that defendant corrections officers did not violate the Eighth Amendment by using pepper spray on the plaintiff when he refused their repeated orders to leave the shower | holding use of pepper spray on inmate who “disobeyed repeated direct orders” was not excessive | concluding use of pepper spray did not violate the Eighth Amendment because plaintiff “disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray” | holding that Eighth Amendment claim regarding guards’ use of pepper spray was barred by Heck where prisoner was found guilty of disobeying a direct order to exit his cell to sit cross-legged on his bunk and face the wall, prompting the use of pepper spray | being merely uncomfortable after being exposed to pepper spray was insufficient to support a Section 1983 excessive force claim | affirming summary judgment where videotape demonstrated that the plaintiff disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray | finding no violation when pepper spray was used in response to prisoner’s refusal to exit the shower | explaining that plaintiff failed to show more than a de minimis physical injury after being sprayed with OC spray when “Ta]t no time was [plaintiff] in respiratory distress of any sort; he merely was uncomfortable in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray” | explaining that plaintiff failed to show more than a de minimis physical injury after being sprayed with OC spray when “[a]t no time was [plaintiff] in respiratory distress of any sort; he merely was uncomfortable in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray” | finding plaintiff repeatedly failed to obey orders and the use of OC spray “was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” not to maliciously cause pain | upholding dismissal of Eighth Amendment claim of prisoner sprayed with pepper spray after disobeying repeated direct orders resulting only in discomfort “in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray” | upholding dismissal of Eighth Amendment claim of prisoner sprayed with pepper spray after disobeying repeated direct orders resulting only in discomfort “in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray” | “The videotape squarely demonstrates that Jennings disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray.” | summary judgment granted where videotape squarely demonstrates that inmate disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray | “The videotape squarely demonstrates that [the plaintiff] disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray.” | the use of OC spray “merely was uncomfortable in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray” and was not a significant injury | “The videotape squarely demonstrates that Jennings disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray.” | “The videotape squarely demonstrates that Jennings disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray.” | no Eighth Amendment excessive force when corrections officers sprayed chemical agent on an inmate who refused to leave the prison shower | “The videotape squarely demonstrates that Jennings disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper sp
Citator
- Cited by
- 25 opinions
ORDER
Floyd Jennings, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the summary judgment for the defendants in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Jennings presently is incarcerated at the Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility. The events leading up to this lawsuit occurred while Jennings was housed at the Oaks Correctional Facility. The facts underlying this lawsuit are adequately set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and will not be repeated herein. Jennings’s complaint alleges that two corrections officers at the Oaks Correctional Facility (corrections officers Alvin Bulerski and Sergeant Kathleen Mitchell) violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment when they sprayed him with a chemical agent in response to his refusal to exit the shower on June 11, 2001. Jennings sought monetary relief against the defendants in their individual capacities. Upon review, a magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted for the defendants. The district court entered judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as the opinion of the court This timely appeal followed.
We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Brooks v. Am. Broad. Cos., 932 F.2d 495, 500 (6th Cir.1991). Summary
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The defendant corrections officers did not violate Jennings’s Eighth Amendment rights because the force used was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, not to maliciously cause pain. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). The videotape squarely demonstrates that Jennings disobeyed repeated direct orders prior to the use of pepper spray. At no time was Jennings in respiratory distress of any sort; he merely was uncomfortable in the ordinary fashion of persons exposed to pepper spray. As a result, Jennings’s claim of excessive force is unsupported by videotaped evidence expressly relied upon by Jennings.
Furthermore, because Jennings fails to allege or show more than a de minimis physical injury, his Eighth Amendment claim for mental anguish is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which precludes any claim by a prisoner “for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 807 (10th Cir.1999).
Alternatively, Jennings’s Eighth Amendment claim lacks merit because it is barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Jennings claims that he obeyed the defendants’ instructions and that the defendants acted without justification in spraying him with pepper spray. Jennings, however, was convicted of misconduct for disobeying a direct order to sit cross-legged on his bunk and face the wall. Jennings’s allegations present a direct challenge to the validity of his conviction.
A prisoner found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing cannot use § 1983 to collaterally attack the hearing’s validity or the conduct underlying the disciplinary conviction. Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226, 230-31 (6th Cir.2000). Because a favorable ruling on Jennings’s Eighth Amendment claim would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction, this claim is not cognizable. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Huey, 230 F.3d at 230.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.