Terre Haute inmate awarded damages for excessive force

An inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute was awarded $2,000 in damages after he won his excessive force lawsuit, with the Southern Indiana District Court finding the “lack of institutional evidence of the incident was exacerbated by the (Bureau of Prisons’) treatment of (the inmate’s) sensitive grievance.”

Robert Taylor, then a 61-year-old prisoner in the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, alleged four correctional officers entered his cell on Nov. 12, 2014, and used excessive force before and after they placed in him handcuffs. Taylor claimed he continues to suffer pain along with fear and anxiety as a result of the incident.

After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found Taylor had proved his allegations against one of the officers. It awarded him $2,000 in compensatory damages for the physical injury, pain, anxiety and trauma inflicted by Officer James Lotz.

Taylor represented himself at the bench trial but was aided by John Maley, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, who volunteered to serve as standby counsel. Previously, Taylor had been represented by recruited pro bono counsel Mary Nold Larimore, Sean Dewey and Ice Miller LLP who, according to the court, had worked more than 500 hours on the case.

According to Taylor, he was sitting on his bunk when officers Lotz and Charles Gilbert entered his cell, grabbed him and tried to handcuff him. Taylor resisted, so officers Steven Griffin and Christopher Tarrh assisted by holding his legs.

Then, Taylor alleged, Gilbert punched and kicked him. Next, Lotz, who weighs more than 300 pounds and can bench press more than 250 pounds, put his knee and weight against Taylor’s lower back. Also, according to court documents, Lotz put his hand on Taylor’s neck and placed his other hand, covered with a latex glove, over Taylor’s mouth and nose, making it difficult for the inmate to breathe.

During this time, Taylor alleged, Gilbert and Lotz were using obscenities and racially-charged words.

Taylor stopped resisting, and the officers were able to cuff his hands behind his back. However, according to Taylor, as he was lying on his stomach, Lotz again placed his knee and body weight against the center of Taylor’s back, hindering his ability to breathe.

On Nov. 23, 2014, Taylor filed a sensitive grievance, alleging the four officers assaulted him in his cell, injuring his head, arm and wrist and causing suffocation. He also requested that the video recording be preserved.

The four officers maintained they did not recall being in Taylor’s cell on Nov. 12 and denied seeing the other officers use force against the inmate. In addition, Lotz asserted he did not have any interaction with Taylor and denied laying a hand on him.

But the Southern Indiana District Court ruled Taylor proved by a preponderance of evidence his allegations against the four officers.

“The Court bases its credibility determinations on Mr. Taylor’s demeanor at trial, the contents and timeliness of the ‘sensitive’ grievance he submitted days after the assault, his request for video of the incident, his consistent descriptions of the officers’ conduct, the lack of evidence that Mr. Taylor had any personal animosity toward the officers or had any prior problems with them or any other officers, the fact that Mr. Taylor had no history of fabricating stories and is not a frequent litigator, and the BOP’s failure to appropriately respond to his request to preserve video evidence,” Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson wrote in the March 28 judgment.

 Although the district court acknowledged the use of minimal force was necessary when Taylor initially resisted being handcuffed, the threat ceased once he submitted. Moreover, the court was unconvinced by the defendants’ contention that the incident did not happen.

“As noted, the overall lack of institutional evidence of the incident was exacerbated by the (Bureau of Prisons’) treatment of Mr. Taylor’s sensitive grievance,” Magnus-Stinson wrote. “The BOP failed to preserve the requested video evidence. The defendants argued that the grievance, signed on November 23, 2014, was not received until December 5, 2014, 23 days after the incident, but even then, there is no evidence that any search for the video evidence was conducted at that time or any time in 2014 or 2015. Although video evidence would not show exactly what happened in Mr. Taylor’s cell that day, it would at a minimum show the range and the four officers entering the cell, which the defendants dispute happened.”

The district court ruled in favor of officers Gilbert, Griffin and Tarrh. Taylor was not awarded any damages from his claims against those defendants.

The case is Robert Taylor v. Charles Gilbert Officer, et al., 2:15-cv-00348.