United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1211
___________________________
Deverick Scott
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Randy Watson, Warden, Varner Unit; Moses Jackson, Assistant Warden, Varner
Unit; Lasaundra Malone, Originally named Malone; Mark Stephens, Captain,
Varner Unit; Corey Paskel, Officer, Varner Unit; Xavier Butler, Officer (originally
named as Butler); Alex Cofield, Officer, Varner Unit (Originally named Alex Copefield)
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
Keonta Wilson, Corporal, Varner Unit (originally named as Wilson)
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Craig Woolfolk, Officer, Varner Unit (Originally named Wolfo)
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
Powell, Officer, Varner Unit
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Cortez Jones, Officer, Varner Unit (originally named as Jones); Phillip Esaw,
Lieutenant, Varner Unit; Kandi Hicks, Originally named Hicks; Joseph Bivens,
Originally named Bplens; Jonathan Young, Sergeant, Varner Unit (Originally
named Young)
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
____________
Submitted: November 6, 2017
Filed: December 7, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Deverick Scott appeals after the District Court1 granted
summary judgment to certain defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Scott
identifies no valid basis, and we discern none, for overturning the District Court’s
assessment of the merits of his asserted claims. See Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d
882, 886–87 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th
Cir. R. 47B.
KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I believe Scott’s excessive-force claim against Phillip Esaw relating to the
November 11, 2014, use-of-force incident should have survived summary judgment.
At his deposition, Scott testified that Esaw emptied an entire can of mace directly in
his face without any warning. At the time, Scott was speaking with defendants Young
and Cofield about his placement on behavior control for intentionally flooding his
1
The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
cell, and he had requested to speak with their supervisor. According to Scott, this
incident occurred three hours after the flooding had been resolved, his cell had been
cleaned without incident, and the situation had been contained. While Scott admits
that the defendants had told him to “catch the cuffs” and that he had not yet complied
with that order, it is undisputed that he was secured in his own cell. Also, there is no
indication he was using abusive or profane language, threatening violence, or
otherwise acting in a manner that would justify the deployment of a full can of mace
to his face without a warning that the use of mace was imminent and some post-
warning opportunity to submit to being handcuffed. Scott’s deposition testimony is
consistent with the allegations in his verified complaint. In my view, this
evidence—viewed in the light most favorable to Scott—was sufficient to withstand
summary judgment as to this claim. See Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d 1186,
1189–90 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Treats v. Morgan, 308 F.3d 868, 871–75 (8th
Cir. 2002); cf. Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136, 1138–41 (8th Cir. 2014). Accordingly,
I would reverse the grant of summary judgment on this claim, and affirm the district
court in all other respects.
______________________________
-3-