Whitener v. Rutherford Cnty. Det. Ctr.

1

RONNIE DALE WHITENER, Plaintiff, v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL No. 1:21-cv-00048-MR

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

August 31, 2023

REDACTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

Martin Reidinger Chief United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on:

1. Defendants John Cooley and Joshua Goodwin's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 58];

2. Defendant John Patterson's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 60];

3. Plaintiff Ronnie Dale Whitener's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 61];

4. Plaintiff's Motions to Revive Defendants [Docs. 63, 81];

5. Defendants Cooley and Goodwin's Motion to Strike Surreply [Doc. 75]; 6. Defendant John Patterson's Motion to Strike Surreply [Doc. 77]; and

7. Plaintiff's “Motion to Remove Detainer for the Purpose of Pursuing Medical Treatment and for Other Relief the Court Can Provide Plaintiff Concerning Matters Related to this Case” [Doc. 83].

I. BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff Ronnie Dale Whitener, who is presently incarcerated in the Tennessee Department of Corrections, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina law addressing incidents that allegedly occurred while he was a pretrial detainee at the Rutherford County Detention Center (“RCDC”) in Rutherford County, North Carolina. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, a jury trial, the costs of this action, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. [Doc. 1: Complaint at 20-21]. The Plaintiff's verified Complaint passed initial review on claims against Defendants Sergeant John Patterson (“Sergeant Patterson”), Officer John Cooley (“Officer Cooley”), and Officer Joshua Goodwin (“Officer Goodwin”)^[1] for the imposition of unwanted medical treatment in violation of due process, the use of excessive force and failure to intervene, and retaliation. [Id.; Doc. 16: Order on Initial Review at 10-14]. The Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims of assault and battery and negligence under North Carolina law. [Id. at 16-19]. The Court granted the Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the Order on initial review or to otherwise properly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [Id. at 23]. It cautioned the Plaintiff that “[p]iecemeal amendment will not be permitted” and, “[s]hould the Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint ... the matter will proceed only against” Defendants Patterson, Cooley, and Goodwin on the claims identified in the Order on initial review. [Id. at 24]. The Plaintiff failed to amend the Complaint, and the Defendants were served. [Doc. 35: Executed Summonses].

On July 5, 2022, the Court entered a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan that set the deadline to amend and join parties as August 18, 2022; the discovery cutoff date as October 27, 2022; and the deadline to file dispositive motions as November 28, 2022. [Doc. 46: Pretrial Order and Case Mgmt. Plan].

In September 2022, after the deadline to amend and add parties had expired the Plaintiff filed Motions seeking leave to amend and for an extension of time to do so,. [Docs. 48, 51: Motions]. On November 14, 2022, the Court denied the Motions as futile. [Doc. 57: Order].

On November 25, 2022 and February 23, 2023,^[2] the Plaintiff filed Motions to “revive” claims against several Defendants that had failed to pass initial review of the Complaint. [Docs. 63, 81: Motions to Revive Defts.]. On February 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Remove Detainer...” in which he asks for the Rutherford County detainer to be removed because it has increased his security level in the Tennessee Department of Corrections such that he is unable to obtain medical treatment during his current incarceration in Tennessee. [Doc. 83: Motion to Remove Detainer]. The Defendants have not responded to these Motions, and the time to do so has expired.

The parties have also filed cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 58: Cooley/Goodwin MSJ; Doc. 60: Patterson MSJ; Doc. 61: Plaintiff's Partial MSJ.]. Thereafter, the Court entered an Order in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4^th Cir. 1975), advising the Plaintiff of the requirements for filing a response to the summary judgment motions and of the manner in which evidence could be submitted to the Court. [Doc. 65: Roseboro Order]. The parties filed Responses and supporting materials [Doc. 67: Plaintiff's Patterson Response; Doc. 68: Plaintiff's Cooley/Goodwin Response; Doc. 66: Patterson's Response] and Replies [Doc. 69: Cooley/Goodwin Reply; Doc. 70: Patterson Reply; Doc. 71: Plaintiff's Reply]. The Plaintiff then filed Surreplies [Docs. 73, 74: Plaintiff's Surreplies] which the Defendants have moved to strike [Doc. 75: Cooley/Goodwin Motion to Strike: Doc. 77: Patterson Motion to Strike; see Doc. 78: Plaintiff's Response]. Having been fully briefed, these matters are ripe for disposition.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall be granted “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 factual dispute is genuine “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). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Id.

The movant has the “initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal citations omitted).

Once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 322 n.3. The nonmoving party may not rely upon mere allegations or denials of allegations in his pleadings to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 324. Rather, the nonmoving party must oppose a proper summary judgment motion with citation to “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials” in the record. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(a). Namely, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence from which “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. To that end, only evidence admissible at trial may be considered by the Court on summary judgment. Kennedy v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 269 Fed.Appx. 302, 308 (4^th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence and any inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Facts, however, “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine' dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). As the Supreme Court has emphasized,

“[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the opponent must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (1986) (footnote omitted). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-28, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

Scott, 550 U.S. at 380.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties' forecasts of evidence show the following, which is undisputed except as otherwise noted.

In 2016, prior to his incarceration at RCDC, the Plaintiff suffered a fracture in his lower back. [Doc. 1-3: Complaint Ex at 4 (March 17, 2017 Progress Note)]. About a year later, he was found to have “progressive kyphotic deformity in his lower back and upper back” and severe lower back pain. [Doc. 1-3: Complaint Ex at 4 (March 17, 2017 Progress Note)]. In December 2017, he was diagnosed with “evidence of severe kyphotic deformity with positive saggital balance and a focal kyphosis of approximately 30° at ¶ 2 [and] ... some degree of coronal scoliosis” that was only correctible through surgery. [Doc. 1-3: Complaint Ex at 1 (Dec. 14, 2017 Progress Note)]. The Plaintiff did not receive surgery for this condition. [Doc. 1: Complaint at 16].

The Plaintiff entered RCDC as a pretrial detainee in May 2019. [Doc. 1: Complaint at 5]. On May 18, 2019, the Plaintiff requested medical attention for lower back pain. [Id.]. At around 3:30 p.m., the Plaintiff yelled for Officer Cooley to come over during supervision rounds. [Doc 59-2: Cooley Decl. at ¶ 2]. Cooley called for the cell door to be opened and stepped inside. [IdJ. The Plaintiff was doubled over, and said that he was having trouble breathing and that his back hurt. [IdJ. Cooley immediately contacted Officer Goodwin...