Shaka Shakur v. M. Brinegar, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia addressed a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging excessive force and unlawful restraint during a prison transfer. The court granted summary judgment only on claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities, denied summary judgment on the remaining liability claims, denied the plaintiff’s subpoena motion without prejudice, denied his extension motion as moot, and directed that the case be set for trial.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was denied because Shakur's verified allegations that each identified officer participated in stepping on his chains, twisting or yanking his restraints, and assaulting him conflicted with defendants' account and created a genuine dispute of material fact concerning personal involvement and excessive force.
2. Summary judgment was denied as to Warden Anderson because Shakur's sworn allegations that Anderson fostered, approved, or authorized an atmosphere of abuse were sufficient to create a factual issue concerning supervisory liability.
3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment to the extent Shakur sought monetary damages from them in their official capacities.
4. The subpoena motion was denied without prejudice. Defendants were directed to produce investigative materials and disciplinary records within 14 days subject to access restrictions, while requests for broad financial, personnel, training-manual, and intake-policy materials were denied as overbroad, unduly burdensome, or disproportionate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Shakur's Eighth Amendment excessive-force and unlawful-restraint claims because the verified complaint did not sufficiently establish each defendant's personal involvement.
2. Whether Warden Anderson was entitled to summary judgment because he was not alleged to have personally participated in the assault and could not be held liable under respondeat superior.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment against claims for monetary damages asserted against them in their official capacities.
4. Whether Shakur was entitled to issuance of a subpoena for investigative materials, disciplinary records, financial information, personnel files, and correctional policies.
5. Whether Shakur's motion for an extension of time should be granted.

Disposition

other