Darlene McDay, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Dante Taylor, et al. v. Stewart Eckert, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, et al.

Summary

This Report, Recommendation and Order concerns claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from the alleged use of excessive force against incarcerated individual Dante Taylor and his subsequent suicide at Wende Correctional Facility. The court recommends denying the defendants’ motions for summary judgment because disputed testimony, medical evidence, and an investigative report create genuine issues of material fact regarding excessive force, failure to intervene, and supervisory liability. The court grants plaintiff’s motion to exclude one proposed expert and denies the remaining motions to exclude, subject to stated limitations.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was inappropriate because conflicting testimony, medical evidence, photographs, and the DOCCS investigative report created genuine disputes about whether officers used force maliciously and sadistically rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
2. The evidence was sufficient to allow the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims to proceed because an officer may be personally involved by directly participating in an assault or by being present and failing to intercede despite a reasonable opportunity to do so.
3. Summary judgment was inappropriate on McDay's claim against Superintendent Eckert because the evidence created triable issues as to whether Lewalski posed an objectively unreasonable risk of serious harm, whether Eckert subjectively knew of that risk, and whether his response constituted reasonable measures to abate it.
4. Qualified immunity did not warrant summary judgment for Eckert because the Eighth Amendment right to reasonable protection from serious harm and the prohibition against failing to intervene in known excessive force were clearly established.
5. The court granted plaintiff's motion to exclude John Rourke's testimony, denied the other expert-exclusion motions subject to stated limitations, and permitted expert opinions where the witnesses were qualified and the opinions were sufficiently relevant and reliable to be tested through cross-examination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether disputed testimony, medical evidence, photographs, and an internal investigative report created genuine issues of material fact on the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims.
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact on correctional officers' liability for failing to intervene in or prevent the alleged excessive force.
3. Whether Superintendent Eckert could be liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a known unreasonable risk of serious harm posed by Sergeant Lewalski and whether qualified immunity applied.
4. Whether the challenged expert testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Disposition

other