Wilson v. Calderon

367 F. Supp. 3d 192
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois
DecidedMarch 20, 2019
Docket14 Civ. 6209 (GWG)
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 367 F. Supp. 3d 192 (Wilson v. Calderon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilson v. Calderon, 367 F. Supp. 3d 192 (S.D. Ill. 2019).

Opinion

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Theodore O. Wilson III ("Wilson") brought this action pro se under *19442 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Corrections Officers ("C.O.") Fernando Calderon, Rosa Elliot, Christopher Kinloch, and Dale Moore, and Captains Antoinette Bramwell and Nicole France to recover damages for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights stemming from events that occurred at Rikers Island while he was a pretrial detainee. See Complaint, filed Aug. 6, 2014 (Docket # 1); Complaint Addendum.1 The Court held a bench trial and, for the reasons stated below, finds in favor of the defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

Following extensive discovery and a summary judgment ruling, the only claims that remained to be tried in this case were Wilson's due process claim against defendant C.O.s Calderon, Elliot, Kinloch, and Moore, and Captains Bramwell and France, and his excessive force claim against defendant C.O.s Calderon, Elliot, Kinloch, and Moore, and Captain France.2 See Wilson v. Calderon, 2017 WL 2881153 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 3209148 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2017). The parties subsequently consented to disposition of this matter by a United States Magistrate Judge as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and waived trial by jury (Docket ## 160, 162, 165).

The Court's Pro Se Intake Unit made significant efforts to find an attorney to take Wilson's case but ultimately was unable do so. Accordingly, Wilson proceeded pro se. The trial took place on September 24, 25, and 26, 2018. Wilson was the sole witness for the plaintiff. Each of the defendants was called as a witness as was Dr. Joon Park. Following the trial, the parties submitted post-trial briefs.3

During the trial, the Court granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 as to Wilson's due process claim and therefore dismissed Captain Bramwell as a defendant. (Tr. 169-170).4 Thus, all that remains to be decided is the excessive force claim against C.O.s Calderon, Elliot, Kinloch, and Moore, and Captain France. This Opinion and Order contains the findings of facts and conclusions of law required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1) as to that claim.

II. GOVERNING LAW

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that there has been a denial of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that the deprivation of such right, privilege, or immunity occurred under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "[T]he right of pretrial detainees to be free from excessive force amounting to punishment is protected *195by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) ). It is undisputed here that force was used against the plaintiff "purposefully or knowingly." In such a situation, the detainee must prove that the force "was objectively unreasonable." Kingsley v. Hendrickson, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015). The Supreme Court in Kingsley held that

objective reasonableness turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. A court must also account for the legitimate interests that stem from the government's need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained, appropriately deferring to policies and practices that in the judgment of jail officials are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.

135 S.Ct. at 2473 (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) and Bell, 441 U.S. at 540, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861 ); accord Knight v. City of New York, 2019 WL 95480, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019) ; Pizarro v. Bd. of Correction, 2018 WL 3462512

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
367 F. Supp. 3d 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-calderon-ilsd-2019.