Opinion
5:20-CT-3269-D
04-11-2023
ERIC HUDSON, v. C/O SESSOMS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert B. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on referral to the undersigned for a hearing and recommendation for damages after the court entered default judgment against Defendant James H. Candelerio. [DE-73]. The court held a hearing on January 18, 2023, at which Plaintiff Eric A. Hudson, represented by counsel, appeared and testified, and Defendant Candelerio failed to appear. [DE-82, -84], For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the court award Hudson $15,000.00 in compensatory damages against Candelerio.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 1, 2020, Eric Hudson, a state inmate, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). [DE-1]. On March 4, 2021, the court conducted frivolity review, dismissed any claim relying on a violation of PREA, dismissed the John Doe defendants, and allowed Hudson to proceed with his section 1983 claims. [DE-9], On November 22, 2022, the court granted Hudson default judgment against Candelerio, ordered Hudson to file an affidavit in compliance with Local Civil Rule 55.1(b)(1), denied summary judgment as to all other defendants, and referred the matter to the undersigned for a hearing and recommendation on damages as to Candelerio. [DE-73]. The court held an evidentiary hearing on January 18, 2023. [DE-82,-84], IL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
A. Complaint
The following facts were alleged by Hudson in his complaint. On an unspecified date (later determined to be July 14,2019) at 3:00 a.m., while Hudson was incarcerated at Maury Correctional Institution, correctional officers Sessom, Edwards, Buck, and Candelerio subjected Hudson to cruel and unusual punishment and to punishment without due process of law in the course of a cell search. Hudson was told to submit to handcuffs and did so, then Sessom pulled down Hudson's boxers, accused him of assaulting officers, used pepper spray on Hudson, and assaulted him with a closed fist. Hudson was thrown to the ground, kicked, and stomped. The assault continued for two minutes and then Hudson was tased. Candelerio verbally abused Hudson, calling him “punk” and “faggot” and stating, “we got something for your (ass),” and then Hudson felt extreme pressure in his rectum. Hudson was then walked naked to the nurse's station and placed in receiving where he was kept in a cell for five hours without being seen by medical or being decontaminated. He was later taken to a segregation cell where he was assaulted by correctional officers Holder, Hetrick, and Joyner, who threw him out of his wheelchair and struck him with a baton. Hudson suffered rib bruising, back and neck pain, and his wrists were cut by the handcuffs, and he still takes medications for his injuries. Hudson later had a bowel movement and passed a piece of a black neck-tie, declared a medical emergency, and pictures were taken of the evidence. A PREA investigation was conducted but Hudson did not receive a response. See Compl. [DE-1] at 5-6.
B. Evidentiary Hearing
The undersigned held a hearing on January 18, 2023, at which Hudson testified and Candelerio did not appear. Plaintiff introduced and the court admitted seven exhibits at the hearing: Hudson's witness statement, Ex. 1; post-incident photographs taken of Hudson, Ex. 3; Hudson's grievance reporting the incident, Ex. 5; Hudson's medical records, Exs. 7 and 9; Hudson's sick call requests, Ex. 10; and a video showing correctional officers escorting Hudson post-incident, Ex.l 1.
Hudson testified as follows at the hearing. During the early morning hours, at approximately 2:50 a.m., on July 14, 2019, Hudson was beaten and sexually assaulted in his cell by correctional officers at Maury Correctional. Hudson was awakened by his cell door opening and Officers Sessoms, Buck and Edwards entered and stated they were there to conduct a cell search. Hudson complied with being handcuffed and his person was searched. Hudson was wearing only boxer shorts and socks at the time, and Officer Sessoms pulled down Hudson's boxers. When Hudson complained, Sessoms took out pepper spray and accused Hudson of liking to assault officers. Hudson sat on his bunk and loudly denied doing anything, hoping to attract the attention of others, but Sessoms pepper sprayed Hudson. When Hudson tried to run out of the cell in response to being pepper sprayed, officers threw him to the floor. Hudson could not get up or fight back, and officers started hitting and kicking him and calling him names like “bitch” and “faggot.” Officer Buck asked if he should call a “Code 7,” and Sessoms said no as they continued to beat Hudson. The assault went on for a minute or a little longer. Hudson eventually heard a code called on the loud-speaker and then heard boots approaching his cell. When other officers arrived at Hudson's cell they did not question what was happening and joined in beating Hudson. Hr'g Tr. [DE-84] at 4:25-8:14.
Candelerio arrived at Hudson's cell after the code was called. Hudson heard Candelerio behind him, like Candelerio was lying on the floor behind him, and Candelerio was hitting Hudson and saying things like “yeah we got you now” and calling Hudson names. Hudson then felt pressure on his backside and pain in his anus, and he tried to scream out but he did not say what was going on because he did not know how to describe what was happening to him. The sexual assault continued for no more than thirty seconds and officers continued to beat him at the same time. Hudson heard a captain ask what happened, and someone responded that Hudson tried to assault an officer, to which Hudson heard the captain say something to the effect of “beat him then.” No one attempted to stop the assault. Eventually Hudson was tased and someone told Sessoms to leave the cell but he continued to hit Hudson and only stopped after being told several times. Hudson was picked up off the floor and walked out of his cell, naked with his arms handcuffed behind his back. Hudson asked to get dressed and was told to shut up. Id. at 8:1510:5.
Hudson was shown a video and identified the area on the video as Maury Correctional F block. He explained the video showed several officers running up a flight of stairs after the Code 7 was called, officers congregating upstairs in the back of the hallway at Hudson's cell, and several officers escorting Hudson down the stairs backwards while he was naked with his arms handcuffed behind his back. Officers walked Hudson down a hallway into an elevator and applied pressure to his fingers as if trying to break them. Hudson cried out “he trying to break my fingers” and was told no one could hear him. Hudson got onto the elevator and went to the nurse's station where he was eventually allowed to dress in boxers and a t-shirt but the handcuffs were not removed. Candelerio was present at the nurse's station and assaulted Hudson again by lifting Hudson's head and hitting him. Hudson asked for medical treatment and decontamination from the pepper spray and received neither. Hudson did not recall being photographed but identified photographs as pictures of himself from the chest up with his head down, shirt off, and blood on his chest. Hudson remained at the nurse's station for approximately five minutes. Id. at 10:6-15:3.
Hudson was next taken to a dry cell, i.e., it had no sink or toilette, he was burning and could not see from the pepper spray and needed to be decontaminated, and the handcuffs were digging into his wrists and legs. Hudson remained in the dry cell for more than five hours until the segregation staff came with a wheelchair to take him to segregation. About an hour after Hudson was placed in a segregation cell, he requested and received medical attention. Hudson was shown a medical record of his clinical encounter with the nurse on July 14, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., more than six hours after he was assaulted. The medical note indicated Hudson's chief complaint was pain in multiple locations and particularly his right rib cage, his pain level was “10,” Hudson had decreased movement with sitting and standing, he thought his rib was broken, he was referred for consideration of an x-ray, and he was given Tylenol and Ibuprofen. Hudson did not see a doctor immediately. Id. at 15:4-18:4.
The following day, July 15, Hudson was in his cell trying to use bathroom but it was painful, and when he took a breath he felt a sharp pain in his side. When he was finally able to defecate he felt a burning sensation. He first thought perhaps it was from the pepper spray but when he looked in the toilet he saw something black. At first he could not identify the object so he used a piece of plastic to scoop it out and saw that it was a necktie like the officers wear. Hudson declared a medical emergency and saw a nurse. Hudson told the nurse, “[m]y anus and ribs hurt” and “[t]his tie came out of my butt.” The nurse noted that Hudson presented a piece of a black tie with feces on it and made a PREA claim, and the nurse alerted the required individuals and gave Hudson acetaminophen. The two lieutenants at the nurse's station asked what happened, and after Hudson told them they took pictures of the neck-tie and also took pictures of Hudson's face without his head down. The lieutenants told the nurse she could put the necktie in a contamination bag and destroy it because they had pictures, and they sent Hudson back to his cell. Id. at 18:5-21:10.
On July 16, Hudson had another clinical encounter related to his assault two days prior and his PREA complaint. The nurse documented Hudson's report that he was injured during a use of force, he was experiencing right rib pain and thought it may be broken, he was also experiencing a burning sensation around his anus, a black tie defecated out with feces that he believes was shoved up his rectum, and he denied anal or oral penetration by penis or other body part. A sick call request from July 21, indicated his wrists were scarred from tight handcuffs, his left hand had been numb for eight days, his jaw was cut and swollen, and he was experiencing bad migraines that medication was not helping. Hudson also wrote a grievance on July 21, against Captain Hudson, Sergeant Joyner, Sergeant Hedrick, Sergeant Johnson, Officer Candelerio, Officer Sessoms, Officer Edwards, Officer Howell, Officer Holder, Officer Wilkins, and all other unidentified officers who reported to the scene for physically and/or sexually assaulting Hudson, calling him sexually derogatory names, and walking him naked in front of female officers, nurses, and other inmates. A clinical note from August 2, stated that Hudson was still experiencing pain in his wrists and tingling from his wrist into his fingers, his left hand felt totally numb, it was hard for him to write, and Hudson was treated with warm, moist heat but it was ineffective. A sick call request from August 25, 2019, documented that Hudson was still having headaches and his hands were still numb from being handcuffed on July 14, there were still marks around his wrists, and medication was not working. On August 28, Hudson provided a written statement regarding the assault that was consistent with his prior statements. As a result of the assault, Hudson continued to experience pain in his anus, ribs, and wrists, numbness and tingling in his wrist and hand, and difficulty with gripping and writing for more than a year. Id. at 21:11-29:3.
In addition to Hudson's physical injuries, his sleep pattern changed such that he slept during the day and stayed awake night, he became anti-social, he feared at any moment his door would open and he would be assaulted again, and he was depressed and felt shame and humiliation. Hudson has a history of mental illness but a treatment note from June 18, 2019, reflects that prior to the assault he was doing fairly well, improving, and not having any major issues. Hudson saw a mental health provider on July 19, after the assault, and was noted to have low mood, a scar above his eyebrow, and difficulty managing his emotions (e.g., being afraid, paranoid, depressed). An August 8 psychiatric progress note stated that Hudson had been treated for anxiety, PTSD, and depression; he had a history of sexual abuse; he was not feeling well, had worsening headaches, was paranoid people and the police were out to get him and the correctional officers were tracking and watching him, which was a new level of paranoia; and he was not sleeping well and was up all night, worried that he would be assaulted. On August 22, during a psychiatry visit, Hudson reported social isolation, a constant sense of doom and fear that he would die, and inability to sleep. An August 30 Mental Health Update Assessment indicated that Hudson's anxiety had improved over the past year but was gradually returning due to his current environment and the recent use of force against him, he was also suffering from increased paranoia, he reported certain staff members harassing him, and he specifically noted that Candelerio would come to the segregation unit and make comments at Hudson's door or stand in front of the block and say things like “that guy down there in that cell, he like things shoved up his rectum,” so that everyone in the block could hear. Hudson remained in segregation for approximately six months after the assault and was then returned to general population in the same unit and block with the officers that assaulted him. Hudson has at least four more years of incarceration but tries to avoid dealing with prison staff unless he absolutely needs something. Hudson is no longer housed at Maury Correctional. Id. at 29:4-38:25.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
“After a court determines, as here, that a judgment by default should be entered, it must determine the amount and character of the recovery that should be awarded.” Etters v. Shanahan, No. 5:09-CT-3187-D, 2013 WL 787344, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 6, 2013) (citation omitted); accord, E.E.O.C. v. Carter Behavior Health Servs., Inc., No. 4:09-CV-122-F, 2011 WL 5325485, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Oct. 7, 2011), adopted 2011 WL 5325473 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 3, 2011). “Section 1983 creates ‘a species of tort liability,' [Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 253 (1978)], and, therefore, ‘when § 1983 plaintiffs seek damages for violations of constitutional rights, the level of damages is ordinarily determined according to principles derived from the common law of torts[,]' [Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 306 (1986)].” Evans v. Hous. Auth. of City of Raleigh, N.C, No. 5:04-CV-291-FL, 2008 WL 2550756, at *7 (E.D. N.C. June 25, 2008) (citation omitted). “While ‘[deterrence is ... an important purpose of [§ 1983] ... it operates through the mechanism of damages that are compensatory-damages grounded in determinations of plaintiffs' actual losses.'” Id. (quoting Stachura, 477 U.S. at 307). Punitive damages may be awarded to plaintiffs in a § 1983 action “to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.” Carey, 435 U.S. at 266.
A plaintiff's inability to prove out-of-pocket loss or monetary harm does not bar a claim for compensatory damages under § 1983. Whisnant v. Hill, No. 5:17-CT-03047-BO, 2020 WL 1901085, at *6 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 17, 2020) (citing Nimmons v. Clark, No. 1:13-CV-03786,2015 WL 1191210, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 16, 2015) (“A federal court may award monetary damages, under Section 1983, for pain and suffering even if the plaintiff cannot present evidence of out-of-pocket loss or monetary harm.”) (citations omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:17-CT-3047-BO, 2020 WL 917253 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 26, 2020); Oxendine-Bey v. Harihan, No. 5:12-CT-03084-FL, 2015 WL 5331809, at *7 (E.D. N.C. July 22, 2015) (same), memorandum and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5330571 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 14, 2015). However, “courts scrupulously analyze an award of compensatory damages for a claim of emotional distress predicated exclusively on the plaintiffs testimony.” Price v. City of Charlotte, N.C., 93 F.3d 1241, 1251 (4th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted); Carrington v. Easley, No. 5:08-CT-3175-FL, 2011 WL 2132850, at *4 (E.D. N.C. May 25, 2011) (denying an award of compensatory damages when plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing he sought clinical, psychological, or other treatment). “[I]n determining the propriety and amount of compensatory damages, courts look to factors such as loss of esteem, physical injury, psychological counseling, loss of income, the degree of distress, the context of the underlying events, corroborative evidence, the nexus between the challenged conduct and distress, and mitigating circumstances.” Carrington, 2011 WL 2132850, at *4 (citing Price, 93 F.3d at 1254).
Punitive damages may be awarded to plaintiffs in a § 1983 action “to deter or punish malicious deprivations of rights.” Carey, 435 U.S. at 266. “Punitive damages are available in an action under § 1983 ‘when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.' Punitive damages are discretionary, and are awarded ‘to punish the defendant for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others from similar conduct in the future.'” Carrington, 2011 WL 2132850, at *4 (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 54, 56 (1983)) (internal citation omitted). “Moreover, ‘punitive damages may be the only significant remedy available in some § 1983 actions where constitutional rights are maliciously violated but the victim cannot prove compensable injury.'” Id. (quoting Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 22 n.9 (1980)).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) establishes limitations on recovery of compensatory damages by prisoners in civil lawsuits by providing that “no Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § \991e, see also Miller v. Clark, No. 3:1 l-CV-00557, 2011 WL 6955512, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 9, 2011) (“Moreover, to maintain a plausible claim for compensatory damages, the prisoner must assert and prove that a physical injury resulted from the violation. Allegations of an emotional injury without an underlying physical injury are insufficient to support an award of compensatory damages.”).
IV. DISCUSSION
At the hearing, Hudson asked the court to award $50,000.00 in compensatory and $50,000.00 in punitive damages against Candelerio. While Hudson was handcuffed, stripped naked, and beaten in his prison cell, Candelerio took a piece of neck-tie from a corrections officer uniform and thrust it into Hudson's rectum. As a result of the physical and sexual assault, Hudson suffered bruises, lacerations, burning, and pain. Hudson's physical injuries are sufficient to sustain a claim for compensatory damages for emotional injuries under the PLRA. See Williams v. Shultiz, No. 5:14-CT-3091-BO, 2019 WL 6974337, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 18, 2019) (finding the PLRA requirement satisfied where the record reflected that plaintiff suffered bruising and abrasions to various parts of his body), aff'd sub nom. Williams v. Jordan, 824 Fed.Appx. 184 (4th Cir. 2020). However, punitive damages are unavailable because Hudson did not request them in his complaint. See Cornpl. [DE-1] at 8 (requesting $500,000 in damages but not specifying punitive damages); Ahmed v. Porter, No. 1:09-CV-101-RJC-DLH, 2011 WL 1043963, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Mar. 17, 2011) (“North Carolina case law makes clear that ‘once default judgment is entered, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages prayed for in the complaint, provided the facts alleged properly state a cause of action upon which the law gives relief.' ... [I] t is very clear that where no answer is filed, the relief granted cannot exceed that actually demanded somewhere in the complaint when considered in its entirety.”) (quoting MRD Motorsports, Inc. v. Trail Motorsports, LLC, 694 S.E.2d 517, 519 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Meir v. Walton, 6 N.C. App. 415, 170 S.E.2d 166, 168-69 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969))).
In the complaint, Hudson alleged that while he was being beaten by various officers, Candelerio verbally abused Hudson, calling him “punk” and “faggot” and stating, “we got something for your (ass),” and then Hudson felt extreme pressure in his rectum. [DE-1] at 5. Hudson testified in detail regarding his physical assault by the officers and the sexual assault by Candelerio, who also physically hit Hudson and later verbally harassed him regarding the sexual assault. As a result of the physical assault, Hudson suffered bruised ribs and lacerations, and Hudson testified that he experienced burning and pain around his anus both during and after the sexual assault. Hudson continued to experience pain in his anus, ribs, and wrists, numbness and tingling in his wrist and hand, and difficulty with gripping and writing for more than a year after the assault. Hudson also testified as to the mental anguish he suffered as a result of the physical and sexual assault, including worsening anxiety, depression, shame, humiliation, fear of reprisal, sleeplessness, isolation, and paranoia, and Hudson's once-improving mental health deteriorated. Hudson's physical and psychological injuries are documented in the medical records, and he sought treatment for both. Furthermore, Hudson's account of the assault in his complaint and testimony are consistent and supported by the documentary evidence, including his witness statement and medical records.
Given the egregious actions of Candelerio, conduct with no penological purpose, and the degree of harm and injury inflicted by him on Hudson, it is recommended that Hudson be awarded $15,000.00 in compensatory damages against Candelerio. See, e.g., Oxendine-Bey, No. 5:12-CT-3084-FL, 2015 WL 5330571, at *8 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 14, 2015) (awarding damages of $10,000 where a guard made sexual comments to and sexually touched the plaintiff inmate); Morton v. Johnson, No. 7:13-CV-00496, 2015 WL 4470104, at *1 (W.D. Va. July 21, 2015) (awarding $2,000.00 in compensatory damages where prison guard “hugged Morton, touched her breast, and rubbed down [her] stomach down to [her] private area and felt [her] up” and plaintiff received mental health treatment subsequent to the assault); Cleveland v. Curry, No. 07-CV-02809-NJV, 2014 WL 690846, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21,2014) (awarding between $2,000.00 and $10,000.00 in compensatory damages when defendant squeezed plaintiffs' penises and/or scrotums for several seconds and plaintiffs suffered physical, mental, and/or emotional injuries); Ivey v. Toomey, No. 9:ll-CV-85, 2012 WL 1995246, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2012) (awarding $25,000.00 in compensatory damages when defendant tried to force the plaintiff to perform oral sex on him, fondled plaintiffs breasts, and sexually assaulted plaintiff, resulting in bruising, bleeding, and mental and emotional injuries); Campbell v. Graham, No. 3:06-CV-444, 2010 WL 2901826, *1-3 (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2010) (awarding $25,000.00 in compensatory damages when defendant performed non-consensual oral sex on plaintiff and forced plaintiff to perform oral sex on defendant); cf Etters, 2013 WL 787344, at *5-7 (awarding $100,000.00 in compensatory damages against officer who forced inmate to perform oral sex “multiple” times and “brutally” raped inmate at least twice).
V. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000.00.
IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be served on each of the parties or, if represented, their counsel. Each party shall have until February 20,2023 to file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct his or her own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Memorandum and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b). Any response to objections shall be filed by within 14 days of the filing of the objections.
If a party does not file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation by the foregoing deadline, the party will be giving up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation by the presiding district judge as described above, and the presiding district judge may enter an order or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In addition, the party's failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline will bar the party from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding district judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).