Opinion
CIVIL 1:20-CV-866
06-28-2024
MARIO MEDINA, Plaintiff, v. C.O. SNOWBERGER, et al., Defendants.
KANE, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DARYL F. BLOOM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Introduction
The Clerk of Court entered a default judgment against Defendant Snowberger on November 17, 2023, and this case was referred to the undersigned to determine the value of that judgment. (Doc. 73). The undersigned conducted a damages hearing on January 9, 2024, during which the plaintiff, Medina, presented evidence. (Doc. 77). In light of that evidence, we recommend that judgment be entered against Snowberger for $100 in compensatory damages.
II. Factual Background
Medina filed this action on May 29, 2020, bringing Eighth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). In the amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, Medina alleges that on June 13, 2018, while he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Benner Township, Correctional Officer Snowberger pepper sprayed him in the face without justification. (Doc. 19 ¶ 18). He further alleges that two other defendants-Correctional Officer Hammer and Lieutenant Shiling-failed to protect him, denied him prompt medical care, and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. (Id. at ¶ 33).
On June 23, 2021, Hammer and Shiling moved for summary judgment. (Docs. 29-31). Snowberger did not join in the motion because, as he acknowledged, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he intentionally pepper sprayed Medina. (Doc. 31 at 2, n. 1). Notably, the defendants did not submit any video evidence on summary judgment. (Docs. 29-31). On January 24, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment, leaving Snowberger as the sole defendant in this case. (Docs. 40-41).
On June 24, 2022, defense counsel moved to withdraw from representing Snowberger because she could not contact him via mail, email, or telephone. (Doc. 44). On July 14, 2022, the Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw. (Doc. 45). Between July 29, 2022, and March 2, 2023, Medina failed to respond to a court order and missed three court conferences. (Docs. 47, 53-60). On April 25, 2023, Medina moved for a default judgment against Snowberger. (Doc. 65-66). On October 23, 2023, the Court entered default against Snowberger, but reserved entering a default judgment and afforded Snowberger 14 days to respond to Medina's motion. (Doc. 70). Snowberger did not respond, and the Court entered a default judgment against him on November 17, 2023. (Doc. 73).
On November 20, 2023, this case was referred to the undersigned to conduct a hearing on damages. That hearing was held before the undersigned via Zoom on January 9, 2023. (Doc. 77). Medina appeared at the hearing and introduced three exhibits-two videos depicting the incident and medical records encompassing the incident date. (Doc. 77).
The videos-which were introduced as Exhibits 1(A) and 1(B), respectively-show that on June 13, 2018, Snowberger approached Medina's cell with a cart full of empty food trays. (Doc. 79, Exhibit 1(B) at 00:00-00:13, 02:23-02:39). Though Medina testified that Snowberger delivered a meal to him through the slot in his cell door, the video shows that Medina passed an object that appeared to be an empty tray through the slot to Snowberger. (Id. at 00:13-00:44). After receiving the tray, Snowberger leaned against the door to Medina's cell and spoke to him. (Id. at 00:44-02:03). While there is no sound in the video, Medina, who is Mexican-American, testified that Snowberger made inflammatory remarks about Hispanic people while at the cell.
After speaking to Medina for approximately one minute, Snowberger rotated his upper body away from Medina's cell and his right arm moved backwards, past his right hip. (Id. at 02:03-02:15). Though the video does not show pepper spray being deployed, Medina testified that he heard the sound of pepper spray, and the video shows that Snowberger immediately rubbed his eyes for several seconds. (Id.). It appears from the video that Snowberger bumped the pepper spray canister with his forearm. (Id.). After rubbing his eyes, Snowberger spoke to Medina for several more seconds and walked away from the cell with his cart. (Id. at 02:15-03:03). As he exited the cell area, Snowberger did not appear to be in distress. (Id.). However, Medina testified that he could not see or breathe after the pepper spray was deployed and that he he pressed an emergency button in his cell to request medical assistance.
There is conflicting evidence regarding how long it took Medina to be transported from his cell to the medical clinic. In the amended complaint, Medina alleged that it took at least an hour. (Doc. 19 at ¶ 20). The amended complaint contains a signed note from another inmate- William Cochran-which states that “[Snowberger] left [Medina] in the cell for about 1 and half hour [sic] befor [sic] coming to check up on him.” (Doc. 19 at 12). However, Medina testified at the hearing that he remained in his cell for 15-20 minutes before he was escorted to the clinic by a group of officers that did not include Snowberger. Finally, the medical records submitted as Exhibit B state that Medina arrived at the clinic 10 minutes after the incident. (Doc. 77-1, Exhibit B at Bates No. 000102).
At the clinic, a nurse flushed Medina's eyes with liquid. Though Medina testified that the nurse's name was Anastasia, his medical records state that he was treated by Nurses Deanna Campbell and Kimberly Ardery. (Id. at Bates Nos. 000102-000103). Medina's medical records state that he was “exposed to accidental deploy of OC spray[,]” which caused his eyes to become red and watery. (Id. at Bates No. 000102). They also state that Medina did not report any injuries other than eye irritation and refused further treatment after his eyes were flushed. (Id.).
On June 20, 2018-one week after the incident-Medina consulted with medical staff about “spots in the front of his eye that seem to move with the movement of his eyes.” (Doc. 77-1, Exhibit B at Bates No. 000101). During the consultation, Medina stated that he had been seeing spots ever since he was pepper sprayed the prior week. Id. However, the medical records state that Medina's eye irritation could have been caused by “a corneal abrasion possibly from rubbing his eyes following being sprayed or during the flushing process.” Id. They also indicate that Medina's extraocular movement was intact, that his pupils were appropriately sensitive to light, and that there was no evidence of an infection in his eye. Id.
Medina testified that he filed a grievance against Snowberger after the incident. According to Medina, correctional officers retaliated against him by pepper spraying him, threatening to harm him if he did not rescind his grievance, and removing personal items from his cell. However, Medina did not testify that Snowberger was involved in any of those retaliatory acts.
At the end of the hearing, Medina requested additional time to submit a brief on damages, which he filed on January 17, 2024. (Doc. 78). In his brief, Medina asks the court to find that “Snowberger, without justification, discharge[ed] OC spray into the plaintiff's cell...” to “inflict unnecessary and wanton pain upon Medina.” (Id. at 3, 7). Based on those proposed findings, Medina seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Snowberger. (Id.). After consideration, we believe that Medina is entitled to $100 in compensatory damages but is not entitled to punitive damages.
III. Discussion
A default judgment establishes liability against the defendant. Broad. Music, Inc. v. Spring Mount Area Bavarian Resort, Ltd., 555 F.Supp.2d 537, 544 (E.D. Pa. 2008). Where, as here, the court enters judgment on a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff may seek compensatory and punitive damages. See Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 307, (1986) (explaining that compensatory damages are available under Section 1983); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 35-36 (1983) (explaining that punitive damages are available under Section 1983); Doe v. Whitebrea,, No. CV 3:15-1165, 2017 WL 590272, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017) (awarding compensatory and punitive damages after the entry of a default judgment on a Section 1983 claim). However, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled the damages he seeks. Arku-Nyadia v. Legal Sea Foods, LL, No. 18-CV-1089, 2022 WL 958465, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2022).
“It is well settled that compensatory damages under § 1983 are governed by general tort-law compensation theory.” Allah v. AlHafeez, 226 F.3d 247, 250 (3d Cir. 2000). Thus, as the Supreme Court has explained, compensatory damages for Section 1983 claims “may include not only out-of-pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also such injuries as ‘impairment of reputation..., personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.'” Stachura, 477 U.S. at 307 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974)). However, a plaintiff can only recover compensatory damages for actual injuries that were proximately caused by the defendant's conduct. Stachura, 477 U.S. at 308; Johnson v. Provenzano, 646 Fed.Appx. 279, 282 (3d Cir. 2016). One's conduct is a proximate cause if it is a “substantial factor in bringing about [the] harm..” Egervary v. Young, 366 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir. 2004).
Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant for his outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar behavior. Wade, 461 U.S. at 54. “Punitive damages are available in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 not only where there was a malicious intent or evil motive, but also where the defendants acted with a ‘reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights and safety of others.'” Bennis v. Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 734 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting Wade, 461 U.S. at 33). As the Third Circuit has previously explained, punitive damages are “a limited remedy, to be reserved for special circumstances.” Savarese v. Agriss, 883 F.2d 1194, 1205 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Cochetti v. Desmond, 572 F.2d 102, 105-06 (3d Cir. 1978)).
A default judgment has been entered against Snowberger and we are, of course, bound by the law of the case. Because the judgment against Snowberger currently stands, we recommend that Medina be awarded $100 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. As an initial matter, we do not believe Medina can recover for emotional harm or for the retaliation he experienced after the incident. Medina did not testify to serious emotional harm and did not seek damages for emotional harm in his damages brief. (Doc. 78). Moreover, while Medina testified that he was subjected to retaliatory actions after the incident, he did not testify that Snowberger was involved in any of those incidents.
In our view, the videos introduced at the damages hearing-which were not previously before the court-cast serious doubt on whether Snowberger intentionally deployed pepper spray at Medina. Though we do not take a position on how the court should proceed, we note that a court may sua sponte grant relief from a default judgment under Rule 60(b). Ocean City Costa Rica Inv. Grp., LLC v. Camaronal Dev. Grp., LLC, 571 Fed.Appx. 122, 127 (3d Cir. 2014) (explaining that “much favors the well-reasoned decisions of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits that allow a Court to grant sua sponte relief [under Rule 60(b)].”
Accordingly, in our view, Medina can only recover compensatory damages for his physical pain and suffering. Because those harms are intangible, Medina's credibility is especially important. We do not find Medina's testimony entirely credible, as it materially contradicts the videos, his medical records, and his own amended complaint.
Though the amended complaint alleges that Snowberger intentionally pepper sprayed Medina in the face as Medina bent down to receive his food tray, the video contradicts those allegations in several respects. (Doc. 19 ¶ 18). First, the video shows that Snowberger was collecting empty food trays, not delivering food. (Doc. 79, Exhibit 1(B) at 02:23-02:39). Second, and more importantly, it appears that the pepper spray was deployed around the time Snowberger began rubbing his eyes, which was approximately one and a half minutes after Medina passed his tray through the food slot. (Id. at 00:13-00:44, 02:03-02:15). Therefore, it is unlikely that Medina was bending down towards the food slot when the pepper spray was deployed. Third, because Snowberger did not unholster his pepper spray, we find it extremely unlikely that he sprayed Medina directly in the face, as the amended complaint alleges. (Id. at 02:03-02:15). This is especially true given that it appears the pepper spray was deployed by Snowberger's forearm. (Id.).
Medina's testimony is also inconsistent with his medical records and his own amended complaint. For instance, Medina's testimony that he remained in his cell for 15-20 minutes materially contradicts the amended complaint, which avers that he remained in the cell for at least an hour (Doc. 19 ¶ 20); Mr. Cochran's letter, which states that Medina remained in his cell for an hour and a half (Id at 12); and his medical records, which state that he was treated within 10 minutes of being sprayed. (Doc. 77, Exhibit 2 at Bates No. 000102). Finally, though Medina testified numerous times that he was treated by a nurse named Anastasia, his medical records establish that he was treated by Nurses Campbell and Ardery. (Id. at Bates Nos. 000102-000103).
With these inconsistencies in mind, we conclude that Medina's physical injuries amount to eye irritation that was treated within 10 minutes and did not persist beyond the date of the incident. As noted above, Medina has made widely varying allegations about how long it took for him to receive medical care. Accordingly, we credit Medina's medical records-which state that he was treated within 10 minutes of being sprayed-over his testimony or the averments in the amended complaint. (Id at Bates No. 000102).
We also credit Medina's medical records over his testimony regarding the severity of his injuries. Though Medina testified that he could not see or breathe after being sprayed, his medical records indicate that he only reported eye irritation. (Id.). In light of the contradictions in Medina's version of events, we credit Medina's medical records over his testimony. Therefore, we believe that Medina only suffered eye irritation from being sprayed.
Medina did not testify as to how long his eye injuries persisted and the only indication that they may have lasted beyond June 13, 2018, is a medical record from one week later. (Doc. 77, Exhibit 2 at Bates No. 000101). According to that record, Medina reported that he had been seeing “spots in the front of his eye[s].” (Id.). However, the evidence does not show that Snowberger proximately caused the alleged spots. Though Medina stated on June 20, 2018, that he had been seeing spots ever since he had been pepper sprayed, he did not report seeing spots when he was examined 10 minutes after the incident. (Id at Bates Nos. 000101000102). Additionally, the June 20, 2018 medical records state that Medina's eye irritation could have been caused by “a corneal abrasion possibly from rubbing his eyes following being sprayed or during the flushing process.” (Id at Bates No. 000101). Therefore, in our view, it is more likely that the spots were caused by Medina or the nurse that flushed his eyes than by Snowberger. Accordingly, we do not believe that Medina has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered an injury that extended past the date of the incident.
In our view, Medina is only entitled to $100 in compensatory damages for his short-term eye irritation. There is no evidence that Medina suffered protracted vision impairment or extreme pain. The discomfort that Medina did feel likely subsided quickly, as he was treated within ten minutes of the incident and refused further treatment after his eyes were flushed. (Doc. 77, Exhibit 2 at Bates No. 000102). Because, in our view, Medina can only recover for his physical injuries, which were minimal, we believe he is only entitled to $100 in compensatory damages.
However, we do not believe Medina is entitled to punitive damages. Medina argues that “the video evidence alone demonstrates corrections [sic] officer [sic] Snowberger [sic] motivation was to inflict unnecessary and wanton pain upon Medina.” (Doc. 78 at 7). We disagree. As noted above, the video shows that Snowberger did not unholster his pepper spray, which makes it extremely unlikely that he sprayed Medina directly in the face, as the amended complaint alleges. (Doc. 79, Exhibit 1(B) at 02:03-02:15). Moreover, based on Snowberger's mild reaction to the discharge, it appears that the pepper spray was only deployed briefly. (Id. at 02:15-03:03). We do not believe that Snowberger “acted with a ‘reckless or callous disregard...'” for Medina's safety by briefly deploying pepper spray from a cannister on his hip while standing several feet away from Medina's cell, which was covered by a solid door. Bennis, 823 F.2d at 734 (quoting Smith, 461 U.S. at 33). Therefore, in our view, Medina is not entitled to the “limited remedy” of punitive damages in this case. Savarese, 883 F.2d at 1205 (citing Cochetti, 572 F.2d at 105-06).
IV. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the court enter judgment against Snowberger for $100 in compensatory damages and deny Medina's request for punitive damages.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 23rd day of January 2024.