Hatchett v. Wright

Full title: ALFRED HATCHETT, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY SHERIFF JOHN WRIGHT and SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 16, 2007

CIVIL ACTION, No. 06-269 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION, No. 06-269.

August 16, 2007

MEMORANDUM ORDER

BERLE SCHILLER, District Judge

On January 20, 2006, Plaintiff Alfred Hatchett, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against Defendant Deputy Sheriff John Wright via a form civil rights Complaint.¹ Plaintiff alleges that Defendant beat him without cause on August 15, 2005 in the sub-basement of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center ("CJC"). A bench trial was held on August 13, 2007. The Court now enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

1 Because Plaintiff never identified or served Security Captain Jane Doe, any claims against her must necessarily fail.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

² Id. Id. Id. Id. ³42 U.S.C. § 1983EighthSee Hudson v. McMilliam, 503 U.S. 15VIII Dziedzic v. Thomas,1993 WL 197027 (quoting Hudson,503 U.S. at 6

2 Plaintiff did not file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

3 Under Plaintiff's version of events Defendant attacked Plaintiff because of Defendant's mistaken belief that Plaintiff had insulted him. (Tr. at 29-31, 34-36.) Plaintiff, however, failed to prove these facts by a preponderance of the evidence and has therefore not met his burden of proof.

The Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to establish facts sufficient to conclude that Defendant acted "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson, 503 U.S. at 5 (citations omitted). Indeed, the facts show that: (1) Plaintiff had verbally chastised Defendant in front of other inmates causing them to become agitated; (2) Plaintiff struck Defendant in the head and face; (3) Defendant used force in an effort to subdue Plaintiff; and (4) Defendant did not cause any permanent injuries to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Wright and against Plaintiff Hatchett. An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16 ^th day of August, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, following a bench trial on the merits, and for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Deputy Sheriff John Wright and against Plaintiff Alfred Hatchett.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.