The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This case proceeds against Defendants Steinbaker, Williams, Kurfmann, Miller, Clayton and Sanders on federal claims of excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and punishment without procedural due process. The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Any discrepancies in the factual record should be evaluated in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In determining whether factual issues exist, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beraha v. Baxter Health Corp., 956 F.2d 1436, 1440 (7th Cir. 1992).
Many of these facts are adopted verbatim from the defendants' proposed facts, to the extent not disputed.
1. Plaintiff was a resident civilly committed within the Rushville TDF for all dates referred to in his Complaint.
2. Defendants were employees of the Rushville TDF for all dates referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint.
3. On September 7*fn2 , 2006, Plaintiff was scheduled to leave the Rushville TDF on a medical furlough.
4. Defendants assert that, while they were attempting to apply restraints to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff refused to comply with orders and became aggressive and combative toward staff. Plaintiff disputes this, asserting that he was not aggressive or combative, but that he only refused to get down on his knees on a concrete slab to cuff up, because he has bad knees. Plaintiff maintains that the defendants did not follow their own procedures, which require them to use verbal and other non-forceful techniques to in response to acting out behavior before they use force. Plaintiff also maintains that he was doing nothing to justify the use of any force.
5. Plaintiff was taken to the ground and restrained. He was taken to the health care unit. The defendants assert the plaintiff continued to be combative, but the plaintiff denies this.
6. As a result of the Plaintiff's continued aggressiveness, Mr. McAdory (who is not a defendant) ordered that Plaintiff be taken out of the Health Care Unit and placed on Temporary Special Management status.
7. Defendants assert that Plaintiff suffered only a small abrasion on his head from the incident, but Plaintiff asserts that he suffered "numerous cuts, scrapes, abrasions, swelling, numbness tingling, loss of feeling to his hands, wrists, ears, forehead, shoulder, neck, and back pain." (D/e 46, p. 6). Plaintiff also asserts that he had to have surgery on both wrists and hands due to nerve damage cause by the defendants.
8. The plaintiff's medical notes from September 1, 2006, indicate that the plaintiff was back from a writ and had "redness and swelling noted to bilat hands/wrist, swelling up appox [sic] 21/2 in. up forearms." The plaintiff's medical notes from September 7, 2006 record a 3 cm, slightly swollen abrasion above the plaintiff's right eye, two scratches to his left scapula look up, 3 and 4 cm, some dried blood behind his right ear, "pink/red ring around bilat wrist", and noted his complaints of numbness in his hands and pain in his shoulders, neck and back. The medical notes from September 9, 2006, show that the plaintiff was still complaining of "numbness, tingling, loss of feeling" in his hands and wrist. A small amount of swelling was noted to the left wrist.
9. The plaintiff had x-rays, which showed no new injuries. A physician's report dated September 12, 2006, states that the plaintiff had reporting injury his right shoulder, neck and back in an altercation in 2003, and had "intermittent ulnar sensory nerve symptoms" since another altercation in May 2005 in which he fractured his right finger. The report ...