Bailey, Jr. v. Silver , 552 F. App'x 818 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 17, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
BILLY JOE BAILEY, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 13-5046
(D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00747-JHP-PJC)
RICK SILVER, previously named as (N.D. Okla.)
Rick Silvers; TROY NEWELL,
previously named as Newell; BRIAN
BREWINGTON, previously named as
Brewington; MEGAN DAVIS,
previously named Megan; JANET
SMITH, previously named as Smith;
CITY OF BARTLESVILLE;
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Billy Joe Bailey, Jr. (“Bailey”) appeals the district court’s grant of judgment to
the defendants on their respective motions for summary judgment or dismissal based
on Bailey’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Oklahoma police officer Brian Brewington submitted to a magistrate judge an
affidavit for a warrant to search the home where Bailey resided. The judge issued the
warrant and Brewington, officer Troy Newell, and several other officers executed the
warrant. During execution of the warrant, Newell found Bailey hiding behind clothes
in a bedroom closet. Newell instructed Bailey to show his hands and step out, but he
did not comply. Newell had been informed prior to the search that Bailey usually
carried a gun and, fearing he was armed, pulled Bailey from the closet and tackled
him to the ground using a tactic called an “arm bar.” Newell planted his knee into
Bailey’s back while attempting to handcuff him.
After being taken into custody at the Bartlesville City Jail, Bailey began
complaining of rib pain. An officer took Bailey to the hospital for an x-ray, which
revealed he had three broken ribs. He was given prescription pain medication and
was discharged. Back at the jail, Bailey continued to complain of chest pain and
reported that he coughed up blood. He was brought to the hospital again for another
exam, which confirmed the earlier diagnosis of rib fractures.
-2-
Bailey was then booked at the Washington County Jail (“WCJ”). He informed
the staff that he had rib fractures and a prescription for pain medication. The staff
placed him in a segregated housing unit so they could apparently monitor his
condition for his safety. A week later, he was placed in the general population.
During his time at WCJ, the prison denied Bailey the use of his prescription pain
medication because the doctor with whom the jail contracted did not allow narcotics
if there was a reasonable alternative. Bailey was instead given ibuprofen each day to
relieve his pain until a later medical exam revealed that his ribs had healed.
Bailey was eventually convicted by a jury of several crimes based on the
evidence recovered during the search, including trafficking in illegal drugs and
possession of a firearm by a felon. After his conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal, Bailey filed a § 1983 lawsuit in federal court pro se. In count one, he alleged
that the search warrant was invalid because Brewington and Newell improperly
prepared the affidavit using false information. He additionally alleged that the City
of Bartlesville did not properly train its officers in preparing probable cause
affidavits. In count two, Bailey alleged that Newell used excessive force on him
during his arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. And lastly, in count
three, Bailey brought charges of unconstitutionally inadequate medical care against
-3-
Megan Davis, the WCJ nurse, Rick Silver, the Washington County Sheriff, and
Washington County.1
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants Brewington,
Newell, Silver, Davis, and the City of Bartlesville, and dismissed the charge against
Washington County. The court found that Bailey’s claim against Brewington and
Newell challenging the validity of the search warrant—the evidence from which led
to his convictions—was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which
held that a state prisoner may not recover damages if a judgment would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction. The court also found there was no evidence
the City of Bartlesville engaged in conduct so widespread as to constitute a custom of
misconduct. See Becker v. Bateman, 709 F.3d 1019, 1025 (10th Cir. 2013) (requiring
that a municipal policy or custom be the “moving force” behind the alleged
constitutional deprivation).
Regarding count two, the court found that in light of Bailey’s initial refusal to
come out of the bedroom closet, the knowledge that he may have been armed, and his
subsequent resistance, Newell used a reasonable amount of force on Bailey when he
arrested and handcuffed him, and was thus entitled to judgment. As to count three,
the court dismissed the claim against Washington County because the County does
not oversee the operations of the jail and hence Bailey could not adequately allege
1
The claim against named defendant Janet Smith was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to effect timely service of process.
-4-
that the County was responsible for jail officials. The court granted judgment to
Silver because he did not participate in Bailey’s medical care and cannot be liable for
vicarious liability under § 1983. See Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63
(10th Cir. 1976). Finally, the court granted judgment to Davis because there was
simply no evidence she acted with deliberate indifference in providing medical care
to Bailey. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 829 (1994). Bailey now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment and grant of a
motion to dismiss de novo. Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1311
(10th Cir. 2009); Hollonbeck v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 513 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir.
2008). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A), an appellant’s brief
must contain an argument, which itself must include the “appellant’s contentions and
the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which
the appellant relies.” Although we liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings and
hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), we do not act as his attorney in
“constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Here, Bailey provides only a factual recitation of the alleged events in his
appellate brief. He makes no argument about the district court’s judgment and fails
to identify a single legal authority suggesting the district court erred. Nor do the
-5-
facts he alleges contend—much less demonstrate—that the district court erred.
See MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 495 F.3d 1157, 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (offering a
“flood of factual allegations” that fails to address the issues for review is “simply not
adequate”). Because Bailey has failed to comply with Rule 28 or otherwise address
the issues for review, we must conclude that he was waived each issue. See United
States v. Kunzman, 54 F.3d 1522, 1534 (10th Cir. 1995).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-6-