Rose v. Garritt

Background

Nakia Rose, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility during the events at issue, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers Daniel J. LaVelle, Za’Quawn Griset, Warren Freeman, Robert J. Cocuzza, and Sergeant Owen Garritt. The opinion addresses defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment concerning LaVelle and Griset’s personal involvement in an alleged assault on Rose on September 14, 2014.

The parties presented sharply different accounts. Defendants’ evidence stated that Rose resisted during a pat-frisk, that force was used to restrain him, and that LaVelle arrived after hearing a commotion, helped handcuff Rose, and did not see or participate in an assault. Defendants also stated that Griset was not present and did not punch, kick, beat, or otherwise assault Rose.

Rose testified that multiple officers punched, kicked, and struck him after he was stopped in the hallway. He stated that Griset was present and was unsure whether Griset kicked him. Rose also alleged in his verified complaint that he was handcuffed and then beaten by several defendants. The court treated that verified allegation as evidence for purposes of summary judgment because it was based on matters within Rose’s personal knowledge.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is one that could affect the outcome under the governing law. At this stage, the court must view the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party, may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility, and must leave genuine factual conflicts for a jury.

For a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. Personal involvement can include direct participation, failure to remedy a violation after learning about it, creating or allowing an unconstitutional policy or custom, grossly negligent supervision, or deliberate indifference to information that unconstitutional acts were occurring. A defendant cannot be held liable solely because of the defendant’s supervisory position.

Analysis of LaVelle

The court found a genuine factual dispute about LaVelle’s involvement. It was undisputed that LaVelle was in the hallway and helped handcuff Rose, but the parties disputed whether Rose was beaten after or while he was handcuffed and whether LaVelle participated in or failed to intervene in that force.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Rose’s deposition testimony established that the assault had ended before handcuffing. The court concluded that the cited testimony did not establish when handcuffing occurred. Rose also testified that Freeman continued twisting his ankle “at the end when everybody stopped,” leaving a dispute about whether that conduct occurred while LaVelle was present and whether LaVelle witnessed it.

Because both sides presented evidence placing LaVelle in the hallway, and because the timing and sequence of the handcuffing and alleged assault remained disputed, the court held that LaVelle was not entitled to summary judgment based on lack of personal involvement. The court noted that Rose’s separate suggestion that LaVelle was one of the unidentified officers who approached him was speculative and contradicted by other parts of Rose’s testimony, but it nevertheless denied summary judgment because other evidence created a factual dispute.

Analysis of Griset

Defendants sought summary judgment on Rose’s excessive-force claim against Griset, but not on a failure-to-intervene claim against him. The court held that Rose had provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about Griset’s involvement. Rose consistently testified that Griset was present during the incident, and the alleged attack involved blows from different directions, which could have made it difficult for Rose to identify which officers used force.

Although Rose testified that Griset did not punch him and was not one of the officers who put hands on him, Rose also testified that he was unsure whether Griset kicked him. The court therefore could not conclude that Rose had conceded Griset was uninvolved. Granting summary judgment based only on Griset’s contrary statement would have required the court to make an improper credibility determination.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The opinion states that the court would hold a status conference on March 12, 2020. The ruling did not resolve the disputed accounts of the alleged assault; it held that those disputes were sufficient to prevent summary judgment for LaVelle and Griset.