Where an inmate alleged that prison officials violated his rights by violently pulling a contraband phone out of his rectum in a prison shower, the District Court erred by granting summary judgment to the officers based upon a video. The video did not show the inmate’s account to be “blatantly and demonstrably false” such “that no reasonable jury could” credit his version of events.
Background
Thomas Alexander, an incarcerated person, claims two correctional officers violated the Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment by violently pulling a contraband phone out of his rectum in a prison shower. The officers insist they found the phone in the plaintiff’s pocket and used no more force than warranted under the circumstances. The District Court granted summary judgment for the officers, relying on a video that captured some of what happened.
Analysis
The District Court concluded that “[t]he video so utterly discredits” the “version of events” set out in Alexander’s declaration “that no reasonable jury could have believed him.” That was legal error. A court may not disregard contrary evidence just because there is a video that lines up with “a governmental officer’s version of events” or “even makes it unlikely that the plaintiff’s account is true.”
Instead, a court considering a defendant’s summary judgment motion may discount a plaintiff’s first-hand account “only [1] when there is evidence … of undisputed authenticity that [2] shows some material element of the plaintiff’s account to be blatantly and demonstrably false” [3] such “that no reasonable jury could” credit the plaintiff’s version of events.
The video here comes nowhere close to meeting that high standard. The soundless 10-minute recording shows the officers leading Alexander from the cellblock into the shower room. From that point on, Alexander is largely out of view until he is brought back out of the shower room and the officers are either not shown or seen almost entirely from behind. The officers appear to have a short conversation with Alexander before one of them brings Alexander to the floor.
One or both officers’ bodies are between the camera and Alexander’s body from then on, and a third officer (who is not a defendant here) later arrives and begins further blocking the camera’s view while the incident is still ongoing. The officers then appear to lift Alexander to his feet, and Alexander disappears from the video again for more than four minutes. The video ends with all three officers leading Alexander out through a different door than the one through which he entered. The video does not “clearly” depict much of anything about what happened in the shower room.
This court sees no inherent contradiction between the video and Alexander’s account — blatant or otherwise. For that reason, the District Court needed to credit Alexander’s version of events when resolving the officers’ summary judgment motion. The question thus becomes whether a reasonable jury could find facts that would establish a violation of Alexander’s Fourth Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights?
Fourth Amendment
In deciding whether an in-prison search violates the Fourth Amendment, the court considers: (1) “the scope of the particular intrusion”; (2) “the manner in which it is conducted; (3) “the justification for initiating it”; and (4) “the place in which it is conducted.”
To be sure, the third factor — the asserted justification for the search — favors the officers. But, even when the Constitution permits a search, courts must ensure it was carried out in a constitutionally reasonable manner. This is particularly so of the sort of “sexually invasive” search that we must assume took place here. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Alexander, the other three factors also cut in Alexander’s favor.
Eight Amendment
A prisoner bringing an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim must make two showings — one objective, the other subjective. Alexander’s account of the events in the shower room — which the court must assume to be true at this stage — is more than enough to avoid summary judgment on the objective component. Although the subjective component for Eighth Amendment excessive force claims imposes “a demanding standard,” a jury that resolved all factual disputes and drew all reasonable inferences in Alexander’s favor would not exceed the bounds of its authority in finding that standard satisfied here.
Immunity
In the District Court, the officers argued they are still entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable officer would have been aware. The District Court did not reach that issue. Although this court would have the power to decide the qualified immunity question in the first instance, it declines to do so because neither party has asked this court to do so, and the officers chose not to brief the relevant issues. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Alexander v. Connor, Case No. 23-6151, June 24, 2024. 4th Cir. (Heytens), from EDNC at Raleigh (Dever). Kinsey Novak Booth for Appellant. Alex Ryan Williams for Appellees. 16 pp.