Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.·-F SW·—··u·———_“’”“*_“"”‘—“`““—_""__““”"__““`_`“YY“__""____—““_`———__M“—_——_—_—h___*_W
` Case 3:03-cv-00544-WWE Document 55 Filed 06/21/2005 Page1 of 3
. * ’I
l
N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT gngg F¤¤§®
ju. `·2s J;.:.~
COREY T. BROOKS CASE NO. 3:O3CV00544 F
zu$1°%°°Fd¤1‘5‘? b u= 30
vs. _ _ A
T_’_?E;T, ?E2?F}TH%C}"
LARRY MYERS ET. AL., NITE “UH?.Ub§-1 `
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS U L
SUM ARY JUDGM NT MOTION l
STATEM NT OF THE CASE g
THIS IS A 1983 ACTION FILED BY A PRISONER AT CHESHIRE CORR. INST. SEEKING `
DAMAGES, A DECLAROTORY JUDGMENT. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BASED ON THE USE OF
EXCESSIVE FORCE. DEFENDANTS HAVE FILED A MOTION FOR SUM ARY JUDGMENT AS TO
THE PLAINTIFFS USE OF FORCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS MANLEY, BUCSIEWICS
AND KNAPP, ARGUING THAT THEIR CONDUCT DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.
STATEMENT OF FACTS §
THE PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION
STATES THAT ON AUGUST 26, 2002 PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO CHEMICAL AGENTS FOR
15 TO 20 MINUTES IN A CELL HANDCUFFED, WHILE DEFENDANTS HAD ALREADY RESTORED ·
ORDER AND SUBDUED INMATE ROBINSON. PLAITIFF COULD NOT BREATHE, VOMITED AND
WAS CHOKING, AND THAT DEFENDANTS KNEW OF PLAINTIFFS ACUTE DISTRESS. BUT IN
DEFIANCE OF NOTHERN CORR. INST. RULES AND POLICIES (WHICH STATE ANY PERSON R
EXPOSED TO CHEMICAL AGENTS WILL BE REMOVED IM EDIATELY FROM CONTAMINATED AREA) i
LEFT PLAINTIFF IN THAT CELL THAT WAS HEAVILY CONTAMINATED FOR 15 TO 20 MINUTES:
WHICH LATER CAUSED PLAINTIFF INJURIES TO HIS EYES INCLUDING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
THE DEFNDANTS AFFIDAVITS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY. THEY SAY THAT INMATE ROBINSON
LET THEM KNOW PLAINTIFF COULD NOT BREATHE, BUT HE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE IN ANY
DISTRESS BECAUSE HE WAS MOVING. ALSO, THAT INMATE ROBINSON WAS STILL OUT OF _
THEIR CONTROL AFTER HE WAS CUFFED UP. SO THEY HAD TO LEAVE PLAINTIFF IN CONTAMINATED `
CELL BECAUSE OF THIS AND THAT HE HAD KNOW INJURIES. Q
1
I
ARGUM NT
POINT 1
THERE ARE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT PERCLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR l
THE DEFENDANTS ON TH PLAINTIFFS' USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM.

IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE BURDEN IS ON THE MOVING PARTY TO ESTABLISH
THAT THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT IN DISPETE AND THAT IT IS =
ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. SEE RULE 56(C), FED. R. CIV. P.;
ANDERSON V. LIBERTY LOBBY, INC, 477 U.S. 242, 256 A COURT MUST GRANT SUM ARY
JUDGMENT "IF THE PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ANSWERS TO INTERROGOTORIES, AND ADMISSIONS Q
ON FILE, TOGETHER WITH AFFIDAVITS IF ANY, SHOW THAT THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE
AS TQANY MATERIAL FACT...
EZQEEEE}Q{4Z;iLS éésééégggazz
§EEEE$;;i¥;;i;¥;e é#¥¥§&12%$2z éxééés$2;;%E

1
¤ · Case 3:03-cv-00544-WWE Document 55 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 2 of 3 1
MINER V. GLEN FALLS,. 999 F.2D 655, 661 (2D CIR. 1993) (CITATION OMITTED). 1
A DISPUTE REGARDING A MATERIAL FACT IS GENUINE "IF THE EVIDENCE IS SUCH THAT 1
A RESONABLE JURY COULD RETURN A VERDICT FOR THE NONMOVING PARTY," ALDRICH
V. RANDOLPH. CENT. SHC. DIST; 963 F.2D 520, 523 (2D CIR.) (QOUTINGNEBRERHON
477 U.S. AT 248). CERT. DENIED, 506 U.S. 965 (1992). AFTER DISCOVERY, IF THE I
NONMOVING PARTY "HAS FAILED TO MAKE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING ON AN ESSENTIAL 1
ELEMENT OF [its] CASE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH [It] HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF,"THEN
SUM ARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRIATE. CELOTEX CORP. V. CATRETT, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986).WHEN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS SUPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
AND SWORN AFFIDAVITS, THE NONMOVING PARTY MUST PRESENT "SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE
TO CREATE A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, "SOTO . MEACHUM, CIU. NO. B— ‘
90-270 (WWE) 1991 WL 21841, AT *6 CD. CONN. AUG. 28, 1991). A PARTY MAY NOT
RELY " ON MERE SPECULATION OR CONJECTURE AS TO THE TRUE NATURE OF THE FACTS 1
TO OVERCOME A MOTION FOR SUM ARY JUDGMENT. "KNIGHT V. U.S FIRE INC. CO., 804
F.2D 9, 1zc 2D cm. 1986) cmu DENIED, 480
_ THE COURT RESOLVES "ALL AMBIGUITIES AND DRAWS ALL INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF THE
NONMOVING PARTY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW A RESONABLE JURY WOULD DECIDE. "ALDRICH,
963 F.2D AT 523. THUS, "[O]NLY WHEN REASONABLE MINDS COULD DIFER AS TO THE
IMPORT OF THE EVIDENCE IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPER. BRYANT V. MAFFUCI, 923
F`2D 979* 982 (2D CIR.),CERT. DENIED, 502 U.S 849 (19910; SEE ALSO SUBURBAN PROPANE 1
V. PROCTOR GAS, INC, 953 F.2D 780, 788 (2D CIR. 1992). A PARTY MAY NOT CREATE A GENUINE
ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT BY PRESENTING CONTRDICTORY OR UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS. SEE SECURITIES
& EXCHANGE COMM'N V. RESEARCH AUTOMATION CORP. 585 F2D 31, 33 (2D CIR. 1978).
THE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO IM UNITY
POINT 2 1
THE DEFEDANTS ALSO CONTEND THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE PROTECTED BY THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED _
IM UNITY. THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IM UNITY "SHEILDS GOVERMENT OFFICIALS FROM LIABILITY 1
FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR PERFORMANCE OF DISCRETIONARY OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS 'INSOFAR 1
AS THEIR CONDUCT DOES NOT VIOLATE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 1
OF WHICH A RESONABLE PRESON WOULD HAVE KNOWN." RODRIGUEZ V. PHILLIPS, 66 F.3D 470, 475 ‘
(2D CIR. 1995) (QUOTING HARLOW V. FITZGERALD, 407 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 70 DETERMINE
WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE COURT MUST z
CONSIDER "THE "OBJECTIVE LEGAL RESONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFULY OFFICIAL ACTION 1
'ASSESSED IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL RULES THAT WERE "CLEARLY ESTABLISHED" AT THE TIME IT 1
WAS TAKEN, " ID. (QUOTING ANDERSON V. CREIGHTON, 483 U.S. 635, 658 (1987). 1
1
AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFEDANTS IN LEAVING <
HIM IN A CONTAMINATED CELL FOR 15 TO 20 MINUTES WHILE HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE BREATHING
VIOLATED NORTHERN CORR. INST. RULES AND POLICIES, AND THE PLAINTIFFS RIGHT TO BE FREE Q
FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISH ENT AND EXCESSIVE FORCE. THESE RIGHTS WERE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED 1
AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION. THUS THE DEFENDANTS" MOTION FOR 1
SUM ARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IM UNITY SHOULD BE
DENIED. 1
1
coz/sy 71 Bmc/L9 ·‘# quo e~:;·.··cu,qw.D AW?
CHESHNCPF, CT 00/.110
2% 1
I

· * Case 3:03-cv-00544-WWE Document 55 Filed 06/21/2005 Page 3 of 3
i
CERTIFICATION i
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE FOREGOING WAS MAILED THIS DAY OF JUNE { T0:
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Am: E. LYNCH
110 SHERMAN STREET {
HAu·1:1v01u:•, CONNECTICUT OU Wg 3
BY: COREY T. BROOKS `
P Pro A litiga 1: ¤
c¤»¤»g2s»a@A /
900 IGHLAND VE {
CHESHIRE, CT 06410 I
F
/
A
A