WROMAS
v.
TUTEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Summary judgment is granted for defendants Anderson and Moss, but denied as to defendant Tuten's Eighth Amendment claim, which requires a jury determination.
Plaintiff sued defendants for alleged constitutional violations. The court is issuing an amended order to clarify its prior ruling on cross-motions fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eighth Amendment Excessive Force cases and more on FLexlaw
In the haste of entering an Order on the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 105, which had been pending since early July 2020, the Order was less than clear. The Report and Recommendation was accepted as to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which is denied. The Report and Recommendation was accepted in part as to Defendants’ motion. To be clear, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Moss and Anderson and denied as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim brought against Defendant Tuten. An Eighth Amendment claim may be sustained when force is used that offends
“contemporary standards of decency,” regardless of whether “significant injury is evident.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 175 L. Ed. 2d 995 (2010)). Furthermore, “[n]ominal damages are appropriate if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove actual injury sufficient to entitle him to compensatory damages.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F. 3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003). The Eleventh Circuit has recently clarified that when a pro se litigant requests compensatory damages, that should be viewed as also including nominal damages. Furman v. Warden, No. 19-14134 (11th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020). Here, a jury must determine if Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim was harmful enough to violate contemporary standards of decency and, in so doing, determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages, either compensatory or nominal. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85, is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No 92, is DENIED in part.
Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Anderson and Moss, but otherwise DENIED as to Defendant Tuten. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration.
SO ORDERED on September 15, 2020. s/ Mark E. Walker Chief United States District Judge
Case No. 4:18cv209-MW-MAF
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ned Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (U.S. 2010)