Inmate wins excessive force and deliberate indifference appeal

The plaintiff in an excessive force case usually has an uphill battle because the police usually have more witnesses and the plaintiff may not be what we would normally call "an upstanding citizen." But if the plaintiff's sworn testimony said the excessive force actually happened, then there's going to be a trial, absent special circumstances. In this case, the plaintiff offered such testimony but the district court dismissed the case. There were no special circumstances permitting that result, so that case is remanded for trial.

The case is Adamson v. Miller, a summary order issued on April 9. Adamson is incarcerated and has no lawyer, so he's fighting this battle on his own. He is up against the formidable New York City law department, yet the Court of Appeals (Bianco, Katzmann and Bolden [D.J.]) reinstates the case.

Plaintiff says he was placed in a chokehold and punched. As the Court of Appeals notes, "Adamson adduced no admissible evidence supporting his version of events apart from his own deposition testimony and affidavit." Under normal circumstances, since sworn testimony can be enough to force a trial on a disputed issue, courts will review that testimony to determine if there is enough for a case. Not this case. The district court "only considered whether Adamson's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses." Since in the district court's view the outside witnesses did not provide useful testimony for plaintiff, the case was dismissed. But, the Court of Appeals holds, "This was error. By omitting Adamson's own testimony from its analysis, the district court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Adamson and to favor him with all reasonable inferences."

Under the proper summary judgment analysis, plaintiff has enough for a jury trial because "a reasonable jury can credit his version of events" and find that "placing Adamson in a chokehold and punching him was an excessive use of force."

Plaintiff also has a case for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Following his arrest, after the lineup, plaintiff told the detective he was having trouble breathing, his throat hurt, and either his mouth or throat was bleeding. According to plaintiff, the detective said there was nothing wrong with him. Since plaintiff claimed he was having difficulty breathing and potential internal breathing, the jury could find that his symptoms were sufficiently serious to demand an urgent response. Here again, the district court made a credibility determination in noting that plaintiff's lawyer, who was there at the time, saw no visible injuries after the lineup. This is a credibility termination that only the jury can make. Whether the jury believes plaintiff in light of his lawyer's testimony is another story, but that's how summary judgment works.

Finally, the district court made a credibility determination in finding that plaintiff has no deliberate indifference case because he did not seek medical attention for several months after the lineup, which means he did not suffer serious injuries, according to the trial court. But, the Court of Appeals says, the jury could find otherwise. When plaintiff was at the Nassau County Jail, his requests for medical help were ignored. At least that's what plaintiff says. But since a jury can believe him, it permits the inference that he did need medical help after all, and that the jailers were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. What does it all mean? It means this case is going to trial.