Peters v. Huttel

Background

Tyrone Peters, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Superintendent William Lee, Correction Officer Lee Benford, Correction Officer Daniel Huttel, Correction Officer Jeffrey Erns, and Sergeant Duane Malark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Huttel, Erns, and Malark assaulted him on November 21, 2012; that Lee failed to protect him from that assault; that Lee retaliated against him during the disciplinary proceedings that followed; and that Benford used excessive force and retaliated against him by closing an electronic gate on him on February 14, 2013. Peters also appeared to allege that Benford, Huttel, Erns, and Malark conspired to violate his rights.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a jury’s consideration and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Failure-to-Protect Claim Against Lee

The court first ruled that Peters had not exhausted his required prison grievance remedies for his claim that Lee failed to protect him. Peters’s grievance about the November 21 assault focused on the alleged conduct of Huttel, Erns, and Malark. It did not alert prison officials that Peters was claiming Lee had failed to address an ongoing risk or should have protected him from the assault. The court therefore granted summary judgment for the defendants on the failure-to-protect claim.

The court also held that summary judgment would be appropriate even if Peters had exhausted the claim. A failure-to-protect claim requires evidence that the official knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk. The court found that Peters had not shown Lee knew of an unusually high number of substantiated assault complaints involving Huttel, Erns, or Malark, or knew of a longstanding, widespread, and well-documented risk of violence at the facility. The affidavits, grievances, and prior lawsuits cited by Peters did not create a genuine dispute about Lee’s knowledge of such a risk.

Retaliation Claim Against Lee

Peters alleged that Lee retaliated against him by appointing the hearing officer, directing a sergeant to intimidate him during the disciplinary hearing, and pressuring the hearing officer to find him guilty. Peters acknowledged that he did not file a grievance about these events. The court rejected his argument that intimidation made the grievance process unavailable. Peters continued using the grievance process for other matters, including matters involving Lee, and the record did not show that prison officials actually prevented him from filing a grievance about the hearing. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on this retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Claims Against Benford

Peters alleged that Benford intentionally closed an electronic gate on him. The gate struck Peters’s shoulder. Medical records showed full range of motion, no visible injuries, and only shoulder tenderness and minor pain. The court also relied on evidence that the gate closed slowly. It concluded that, regardless of Benford’s alleged intent, the force was at most minimal and was not sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim. The court granted the defendants’ motion on that claim.

Peters also alleged that Benford struck him with the gate in retaliation for his protected conduct, including filing grievances. The court held that the alleged use of force was too minimal to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion on any retaliation claims against Benford.

Conspiracy Claim

The court granted summary judgment on the alleged conspiracy among Benford, Huttel, Erns, and Malark. A civil-rights conspiracy claim requires evidence of an agreement to inflict an unconstitutional injury and an act taken to advance that agreement. Because Peters had not produced sufficient evidence that Benford committed an underlying constitutional violation in the gate incident, the court held that the related conspiracy claim could not proceed.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. It stated that William Lee and Lee Benford had no remaining claims against them, dismissed them from the case, and directed the clerk to remove them from the caption. The opinion also set a pretrial conference for January 24, 2020.