United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND OTHER PENDING MOTIONS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
reasons explained in this Entry, the motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Officers Booker and Cox, dkt.
, is granted.
Michael Berryman brings this action under the theory of
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Mr. Berryman at all times relevant to this action was
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre
Haute, Indiana (“FCI-TH”).
Berryman alleges that on or about August 14, 2013, after a
stay in a hospital he was returned to FCI-TH and was placed
in a small holding cell. He was verbally harassed by Officers
Booker and Cox. Mr. Berryman struck his forehead on the door
bars, causing cuts on his forehead. He was taken to medical,
where he refused treatment and refused to talk to anyone. He
alleges that Officer Booker placed him in hard restraints
consisting of a steel belly chain, steel handcuffs, and a
black box over the cuffs, rendering him unable to move his
hands. He further alleges that the chain and cuffs were
excessively tight, causing severe pain and swelling in his
hands, right wrist, and kidneys. He was unable to use the
restroom without soiling himself because he was unable to
lift the smock he had to wear. He also was unable to eat,
drink, or take his medication. These conditions lasted 72
hours. He also alleges that Officer Cox videotaped and
Officer Morrison watched the placement of the restraints on
Mr. Berryman but did nothing to remedy the situation.
defendants remaining after the Court screened the complaint
are: 1) Officer Booker; 2) Officer M. Cox; and 3) Officer
Morrison. The U.S. Marshal attempted to serve defendant
Officer Morrison but reported that Officer Denny Morris is
deceased and there is no Officer Morrison employed at FCI-TH.
Dkt. 26. No. motion to substitute a party for the claim
against Officer Morris has been filed. Dkt. 29; dkt.
Booker and Cox seek resolution of Mr. Berryman's claims
through the entry of summary judgment. Dkt. 121. Mr. Berryman
has opposed the motion, dkt. 138, the moving defendants
replied, dkt. 140, and Mr. Berryman filed an additional
declaration, dkt. 141.
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is
genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving
party, then there is no “genuine” dispute.
Scott v. Harris, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007).
following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standards set forth above. That is, this statement of facts
is not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary
judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the
disputed evidence are presented in the light reasonably most
favorable to Mr. Berryman as the non-moving party with
respect to the motion for summary judgment. See Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
The August 14, 2013 Application of Ambulatory
August 8, 2013, while he was incarcerated at the FCI-TH, Mr.
Berryman was transferred to Union Hospital after he
intentionally overdosed on his metoprolol blood pressure
medication. Dkt. 121-1, ¶¶ 6-7. Mr. Berryman was
discharged from Union Hospital on the morning of August 14,
2013, and returned to the Special ...