Milton v. Correctional Officer Saad Rehman

Background

Robert Milton brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that Correctional Officers Saad Rehman, Pasko Delovic, and Leon Lowe, and Sergeant Theodore Brooks violated the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force, failing to intervene, and acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs during a February 17, 2017 transport.

Milton said he had claustrophobia and needed medication before being restrained and placed in transport vans. He claimed that officers used excessive force while applying restraints, that he was confined in the first van for about three hours, and that Lowe used additional force when he was moved to a replacement van. Milton also claimed that Brooks and other officers failed to intervene. During the trip, he complained that his handcuffs were too tight and that his hands were numb. The defendants disputed important parts of this account, including whether Milton told them about his claustrophobia or need for medication and how the force was used.

The case also involved missing portions of body-camera footage recorded during the transport. The parties stipulated that relevant portions were missing even though the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had an obligation to preserve the video.

Motions and recommendation

After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when no genuine dispute about an important fact requires a jury’s decision. Milton moved for sanctions based on the missing video, seeking an adverse inference against the defendants or permission to present evidence about the missing footage, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

Magistrate Judge Wang recommended denying summary judgment because factual disputes existed concerning the alleged force, the officers’ knowledge of Milton’s condition, and the events during the move between vans. She also recommended denying summary judgment on Milton’s failure-to-intervene claim against Brooks and his deliberate-indifference claim, and rejecting the defendants’ qualified-immunity and Eleventh Amendment arguments. As to sanctions, she recommended allowing Milton to present evidence about the video’s nonpreservation but not awarding an adverse inference at that point or attorney’s fees and costs.

District court’s ruling

The defendants objected only to the recommendation concerning the deliberate-indifference claim. Judge Rochon reviewed that issue and concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the defendants knew Milton repeatedly requested medication and nevertheless restrained and transported him without taking reasonable steps to confirm whether he needed medication. The court rejected the argument that the defendants could automatically rely on medical staff at the Metropolitan Correctional Center or that their lack of authority to administer medication resolved the claim in their favor.

The court also adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning the other claims and the sanctions motion. It held that the factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the excessive-force, failure-to-intervene, and deliberate-indifference claims, and that those disputes also prevented summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and overruled the defendants’ objections. It denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part Milton’s motion for sanctions. The ruling allowed evidence concerning the missing footage to be presented to the jury, did not impose an adverse inference at that stage, and did not award attorney’s fees or costs for the sanctions motion. The court directed the parties to submit pretrial materials and set a final pretrial conference and jury trial.