Puller v. Barnett

Puller v. Barnett · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division · March 24, 2025 · No. 3:23-cv-13-HEH

Summary

This memorandum opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia resolves cross-motions for summary judgment in a pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, an inmate, alleges that a jail officer used excessive force to break her finger and subsequently failed to provide adequate medical treatment. The court denies summary judgment on the excessive force claim due to a genuine dispute of material fact but grants summary judgment on the medical care claim, concluding there is no evidence of deliberate indifference.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division
Writing for the Court
Henry E. Hudson
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Decision date
March 24, 2025
Docket number
3:23-cv-13-HEH
Procedural posture
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment; the court considered them.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
other

Topics

section 1983prisoners rightscruel and unusual punishmentsummary judgmentcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Barnett's use of a tray‑slot door constituted excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
  2. Whether Barnett's failure to provide timely medical care amounted to deliberate indifference violating the Eighth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. The court denied summary judgment on Puller's excessive‑force claim, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Barnett slammed the door on Puller's finger.
  2. The court granted summary judgment on Puller's medical‑care claim, concluding that the record shows no deliberate indifference because Barnett promptly notified medical staff and a nurse treated the injury.

Key quotations

Summary judgment must be rendered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). (at 1)
To survive summary judgment on an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must demonstrate that “the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective component) and . . . the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted on the inmate was sufficiently serious (objective component).” Jko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 238 (4th Cir. 2008). (at 1)

Factual background

Puller was incarcerated at Arlington County Jail in September 2022. She alleges that Lt. J. Barnett closed a steel food‑slot door on her right ring finger, breaking it, and then failed to obtain timely medical treatment until she was transferred to the Virginia Department of Corrections on November 16, 2022.

Procedural history

Puller, a Virginia inmate, filed a §1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Puller's motion on the excessive‑force claim and granted Barnett's motion on the medical‑care claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…