Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; December 7, 1992; Federal District Court
William C. Giroux, an inmate at Graterford State Prison, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight correctional officers, claiming they assaulted him on four occasions without provocation. A non-jury trial occurred on December 1-3, 1992. The court confirmed its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).
The prison, housing approximately 2,600 inmates, is structured into various blocks based on inmate behavior. A-Block is designated for well-behaved inmates, while a restricted housing unit (RHU) confines inmates to their cells for 23 hours a day. Testimony highlighted the challenges of maintaining order in such a large facility, and the Supreme Court has established that federal courts should not micromanage prison discipline, granting deference to prison administrators in their policy decisions.
The case implicates Eighth Amendment concerns regarding excessive force. The Supreme Court has ruled that the unnecessary infliction of pain is considered cruel and unusual punishment. The judicial inquiry focuses on whether force was used in good faith to maintain discipline or maliciously to cause harm, as articulated in recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Hudson v. McMillian and Whitley v. Albers.
Resolution of the inquiry requires assessing credibility, often resulting in a conflict of testimony between the inmate, Mr. Giroux, and the correctional officers. Mr. Giroux alleges he suffered unprovoked beatings on four occasions. The first incident occurred on August 31, 1989, primarily involving Corrections Officer Edward Sherman, with subsequent mistreatment from Officers Wilson and Ligon. A second incident on September 13, 1989, involved David Sherman, Edward's brother, who allegedly assaulted Mr. Giroux and forced him to walk back to his cell after a medical emergency. A third incident in January 1990 involved Robert Weikel, who allegedly struck Mr. Giroux in the kidney area. The final incident in December 1990 involved Corrections Officer Krieg, who reportedly punched Mr. Giroux in the throat and head, possibly in the presence of an uninvolved officer, Harris. The parties have agreed that all defendants acted under state law authority at all times.
Regarding the August 31, 1989, incident, Mr. Giroux, an inmate assigned to deliver breakfasts, encountered difficulty accessing the kitchen. After awakening early and getting ready for work, he requested Corrections Officer Sankey to unlock the door but was directed to Officer Edward Sherman. Sherman’s dismissive response and refusal to allow Mr. Giroux into the kitchen, in contrast to the treatment of other culinary workers, is viewed as evidence of malice. This refusal hindered Mr. Giroux's ability to perform his duties on his first day alone, suggesting a motive rooted in spite.
At approximately 5:50 a.m., Mr. Giroux approached Officer Sherman on the A-Block bridge, expressing concern about potential job loss. Officer Sherman threatened to issue a 'write-up,' implying a lock-up under strict conditions. Despite Mr. Giroux's inquiries about his alleged misconduct, Officer Sherman aggressively pushed him against the wall. Mr. Giroux then attempted to seek assistance by banging on the door to the Day Captain's office. In response, Officer Sherman shoved him down the steps and physically assaulted him, causing Mr. Giroux to curl up in pain. Witnesses, including Lt. John Gysen and other guards, arrived shortly after, but Officer Sherman’s version of events was favored, resulting in Mr. Giroux being taken to the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU).
In the RHU, Mr. Giroux was unmanacled and stripped as per procedure, during which he was allegedly kicked in the head by Officer Wilson and struck by Officer Ligon. Mr. Giroux did not resist, believing it would be futile. A misconduct report was issued by Officer Sherman against Mr. Giroux for assault and disobeying an order, which Mr. Giroux contested without success. The accounts of the incident diverged sharply between Mr. Giroux and Officer Sherman, particularly regarding the aggressor and the level of violence. Officer Sankey, who was on duty but away from the altercation, claimed he did not witness the incident and his testimony was deemed unreliable. Ultimately, the assessment favored Mr. Giroux's credibility over Officer Sherman’s, especially considering Mr. Giroux's trusted position as a truck pusher responsible for delivering meals to transient inmates.
The procedure for serving breakfast involved opening cell doors, handing trays to inmates, and pouring coffee while they waited at the doors. Due to the potential for mischief and disruption, only trustworthy inmates were allowed to participate. Mr. Giroux, recognized for his reliability, was noted to be physically incapable of assaulting a corrections officer, supported by his history of docility and lack of prior violent behavior. Testimony from Officer Krieg confirmed he had never witnessed Mr. Giroux commit an assault. In a situation where he faced provocation, Mr. Giroux injured himself rather than retaliate against the instigator. During the court proceedings, Mr. Giroux remained respectful despite the presence of multiple corrections officers, conveying his emotional distress through his demeanor. Conversely, Edward Sherman displayed a combative attitude in court but acknowledged Mr. Giroux's politeness and hard work, except for one incident. The court found that Sherman's beating of Mr. Giroux was unnecessary for discipline and was instead a malicious act intended to inflict pain. Mr. Giroux's insistence on entering the kitchen to perform his job was not a justification for the brutality he experienced. Regarding the alleged mistreatment by Officers Wilson and Ligon after the incident, the court found insufficient evidence to favor Mr. Giroux's claims against them. Additionally, Mr. Giroux testified about experiencing chest pains on September 13 while in the RHU, with medical records confirming his history of acute myocardial infarction and the necessity of carrying nitroglycerin tablets. These records supported his concerns about potentially facing another heart attack, contradicting some defendants’ claims that he was faking his cardiac issues.
Mr. Giroux was taken to the infirmary around 10:00 p.m. on September 13 due to persistent chest pain. After receiving a calming injection and an electrocardiogram that indicated no heart attack, he was returned to his 'hard cell' in the RHU because no suitable cells were available. At midnight, Mr. Giroux was escorted back to the RHU by Officer David Sherman, the brother of a man Mr. Giroux had allegedly been assaulted by two weeks prior. Mr. Giroux requested a different escort due to his apprehension, but this request was denied. While handcuffed and shackled, Mr. Giroux experienced physical abuse from Sherman during the walk back to the RHU, including being jabbed in the kidney and struck on the shoulders, which Mr. Giroux thought was with a baton.
David Sherman claimed he attempted to secure a van for transport but was unsuccessful, a claim Mr. Giroux contested, noting no serious effort was made. Upon returning to the RHU, Mr. Giroux was processed and testified that David Sherman, along with Officers Springer, Moran, and another individual named 'Larry,' assaulted him again in a small room. Following the beating, Mr. Giroux began to urinate blood and sought medical attention the next day. David Sherman largely denied Mr. Giroux's allegations but admitted to escorting him back to the RHU. The court found Mr. Giroux's testimony credible and noted David Sherman's combative demeanor during his testimony, indicating possible sadistic tendencies. The court emphasized that forcing Mr. Giroux, who had a history of cardiac issues and had been transported on a stretcher, to walk back to the RHU was particularly reprehensible and constituted sadistic behavior, contrasting it with the prior altercation involving Edward Sherman. Regarding Officer Springer, the court concluded Mr. Giroux did not provide sufficient evidence to identify him as a participant in the assault.
Mr. Giroux experienced difficulties with his memory regarding the identity and order of individuals who assaulted him upon his return to the RHU. He specifically identified Sgt. Martin Earhart, who allegedly slapped him after accusing him of causing trouble for the officers. Although Sgt. Earhart was in charge during that time and denied any use of force, the assessment found Mr. Giroux's recollection credible but deemed the slap insufficiently severe to constitute actionable conduct under the de minimis standard established in Hudson v. McMillian.
In a separate incident in January 1990 at the E-Gallery, Mr. Giroux testified that Corrections Officer Robert Weikel entered his cell, forced his cellmate out, and ordered Mr. Giroux to assume a vulnerable position. Officer Weikel then allegedly struck Mr. Giroux in the kidneys multiple times while challenging him to fight back, causing him to suffer kidney pain and subsequent blood in his urine. The finding criticized Officer Weikel's denials as incredible and noted that conditions in the E-Gallery were nearly indistinguishable from the RHU, thus supporting Mr. Giroux's account of being targeted due to perceived solidarity with another inmate. The actions of Officer Weikel were characterized as malicious and unprovoked.
On December 22, 1990, Mr. Giroux claimed he was assaulted by Officer Krieg, who blocked the dispensary doorway, stepped on his sneaker, and struck him in the throat and head. Inmate Antonio DeBerry corroborated Mr. Giroux’s account, stating he witnessed the assault. While Officer Krieg denied being present, he admitted to being nearby for lunch and the dispensary records confirmed that Mr. Giroux received medication that day, although the exact date was unclear. This incident stood out because Mr. Giroux's testimony was backed by an eyewitness, contrasting with the other incidents.
Inmate DeBerry's testimony is deemed credible due to his demeanor and lack of self-interest in recounting the events from December 22, 1990. The findings indicate that Officer Krieg unlawfully punched Mr. Giroux with malicious intent, though no significant injury was recorded. According to principles established in Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, damages for constitutional rights violations are assessed based on common law tort principles, which can include compensatory damages for emotional suffering, humiliation, and mental anguish.
Mr. Giroux experienced severe humiliation and mental anguish due to ongoing violence from Graterford corrections officers, particularly after incidents on August 31 and September 13. Testimony from Dr. Demetrius Bagley linked Mr. Giroux's urinary issues to the brutality he faced, suggesting that prior medical conditions were aggravated by the assaults. As a result, Mr. Giroux is awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages against Officer Edward Sherman for the pain and humiliation from the August 31 incident and the resulting misconduct citation that led to further assaults.
Additionally, due to the particularly sadistic nature of David Sherman's actions during the "long walk," which was motivated by personal vendetta, Mr. Giroux is entitled to another $10,000 in compensatory damages. The severity of David Sherman's conduct necessitates punitive damages as well, considering the established state of mind under Smith v. Wade.
Punitive damages are intended to punish defendants for malicious conduct and deter similar actions by others, as highlighted by Justice Powell in Stachura. David Sherman exhibited an "evil motive" beyond mere recklessness, justifying punitive damages. Based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court awarded punitive damages equal to the compensatory damages, totaling $10,000, due to Sherman’s outrageous and sadistic behavior.
Officer Weikel inflicted significant harm on Mr. Giroux, resulting in pain and blood in his urine, leading to an award of $5,000 for compensatory damages. Officer Krieg's unprovoked actions also warranted compensation, but as they did not cause serious injury, only $1,000 was awarded for Mr. Giroux's pain, humiliation, and mental anguish.
The court acknowledged the challenges faced by prison authorities in maintaining discipline, emphasizing that corrections officers generally deserve deference in their conduct. However, the evidence revealed that Mr. Giroux suffered torment by multiple defendants, primarily in solidarity with Sherman. The court expressed appreciation for the pro bono legal representation provided by Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, specifically acknowledging associates Benjamin Naitove and Jennifer Haltzman for their efforts.
An appropriate order was issued on December 7, 1992, following a non-jury trial and based on the factual findings and legal conclusions detailed in the memorandum.
Count II of the First Amended Complaint has been withdrawn. Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff William C. Giroux against the defendants for specific amounts: Edward Sherman ($10,000), David Sherman ($10,000 compensatory and $10,000 punitive), Robert Weikel ($5,000), and John Krieg ($1,000), with costs taxed against them. Conversely, judgment is entered in favor of defendants John Ligon, Timothy Wilson, Martin Earhart, and David Springer against Giroux. Giroux is identified as the prevailing party, and his counsel must submit documentation for attorney's fees by December 18, 1992, with a hearing scheduled for December 23, 1992, to assess the reasonableness of the fee request. The First Amended Complaint originally included two counts, with the second for assault and battery under state law, which were withdrawn, focusing the case on the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Related information includes that David Sherman’s employment with the Department of Corrections was terminated in spring 1990 for unrelated reasons, and that A-Block, where Giroux was housed, is considered a well-behaved "honor block." Testimony also noted an incident where Giroux was disciplined for possessing minor contraband, which is portrayed as trivial. Additionally, Giroux filed a grievance regarding his treatment, implying a systemic issue in the correctional environment. The legal backdrop references a Supreme Court decision clarifying the threshold for Eighth Amendment violations, asserting that even minor injuries can be actionable if they rise above de minimis harm, contrasting with the actions of the Sherman brothers, which were deemed not to shock the conscience.
