Sanders #872470 v. Jensen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
CLAUDE SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN JENSEN et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-1025
Honorable Ray Kent
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Claude Sanders under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
parties have consented to proceed in all matters in this action under the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 1, 19.) This matter is before the Court on a motion for
summary judgment filed by Defendants. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss this action with prejudice as
frivolous.
Discussion
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at
the Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF) in Carson City, Michigan. He is presently serving a
consecutive sentence string of 17 to 32 years imposed by the Wayne County Circuit Court on April
19, 2013, following Plaintiff’s nolo contendere plea to charges of second-degree murder and
felony 	firearm. 	See 	MDOC 	Offender 	Tracking 	Information 	System 	(OTIS),
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of
13

2
https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/search (enter First Name “Claude,” Last Name “Sanders,” select
Search, select Offender Number 872470) (last visited Oct. 6, 2026). 1
Plaintiff’s unverified statement of claim, in its entirety, reads as follows:
On 04-18-24 Piggott and Barna forced me out my cell with no shoes on and walked
me to base where Jensen was waiting tried to force me to put shoes on that was
worn by another prisoner when I refused, they took me into the Housing Unit 1
vestibule and started hitting me in the face, ribs, stomach, leg and picking me up by
my jaw line, after this was done they drug me outside and continued to beat on me
picking me up by my jaw line and putting there hands around my neck. While going
to the property room where transportation was waiting for me they continued to
abuse me by bending my legs when I got to the property room one of the C/O’s
punched me in the face and started bending my arm downward through the slot.
This all happen on camera approx. 8:00 to 8:30 A.M
(Compl., ECF No. 1 PageID.3.) Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,300,000.00. (Id.,
PageID.4.)
Following preliminary review of the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, the Court dismissed certain claims and certain parties. (Op., ECF No. 4, PageID.22.) The only
claims that remain are Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Jensen, Piggott,
and Barna for the use of excessive force during their escort of Plaintiff from his cell to the IBC
property room. (Id.)
Defendants have moved for the entry of summary judgment in their favor on two
grounds: first, considering the evidence they have presented to the Court, there are no genuine
issues of material fact regarding the merits of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim and they are
1 This Court takes judicial notice of the information provided by a search of the MDOC’s OTIS
website with regard to Plaintiff. See, e.g., United States v. Alexander, 543 F.3d 819, 824 (6th Cir.
2008); Carpenter v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr. Time Computation Unit, No. 1:13-cv-313, 2013 WL
1947249, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Mich. May 9, 2013); Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821–
22 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of
13

3
entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and second, they are shielded from liability under the
doctrine of qualified immunity.
In support of Defendants’ motion, they have submitted the following: Plaintiff’s
grievance regarding the incident (ECF No. 22-2), excerpts from Plaintiff deposition transcript
(ECF No. 22-3), the IBC critical incident reports regarding the escort (ECF No. 22-4), documents,
including the hearing report, relating to the assault and battery misconduct charge filed against
Plaintiff relating to the escort (ECF No. 22-5), documents, including the hearing report, relating to
the threatening behavior misconduct charge filed against Plaintiff relating to the escort (ECF No.
22-6), the surveillance video of the escort (EECF No. 22-7), Defendant Piggott’s verified
declaration regarding the escort and the video (ECF No. 22-8), and MDOC policy directive
03.03.105, regarding prisoner discipline. Plaintiff has not responded to, or otherwise opposed,
Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Defendant Piggott’s verified declaration states:
4. On April 18, 2024, I was working in Housing Unit 1 at IBC. Plaintiff was housed
in Unit 1 and was scheduled to be transferred to another prison that morning.
Shortly after 8 a.m., Sanders was escorted to the Housing Unit 1 pod area by me
and CO Barna, where CO Jensen provided Sanders shoes, and instructed Sanders
to put on the shoes for his walk to the Property Room. Sanders refused multiple
orders to put on the shoes and refused to walk to the Property Room. Sanders then
made his body limp and fell to his knees resisting our attempts to escort him.
Lieutenant Fuller and Sergeant Camp were radioed and arrived on scene. They also
instructed Sanders to stand up and walk to the Property Room, and Sanders refused
to follow their orders as well.
5. Because of Sanders’ refusal to walk, a wheelchair was retrieved, and Sanders
was ordered to stand up and get into the wheelchair. Sanders refused this order.
After Sanders’ repeated refusals to walk or get into a wheelchair, staff picked
Sanders up and placed him in the wheelchair. Sanders’ winter hat was then pulled
over his face after Sanders threatened to spit on us. Sanders was then wheeled to
the Property Room, where he was placed in a holding cage module.
6. During this incident, only required proper force was used. Sanders was never
punched, choked, or struck in any manner.
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of
13

4
(Piggott Decl., ECF No. 22-8, PageID.159–160.)
Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion, he has not provided a
verified declaration that is contrary to Defendant Piggott’s. Plaintiff’s complaint is not verified;
Plaintiff’s grievance statements are not verified. Nonetheless, there is sworn testimony from
Plaintiff in the record in the form of his deposition testimony. Moreover, the questioning of
Plaintiff was guided by the statements he provided in his grievances, particularly the description
he provided on August 21, 2024, that is attached to Plaintiff’s grievance, (ECF No. 22-2,
PageID.93), and to his deposition, (ECF No. 22-3, PageID.118). The description reads as follows:
On April 18, 2024, I was assaulted by the following staff at IBC. CO’s Jensen, CO.
Piggot, CO. Burna of 1st Shift, (Unknown Lt), (Unknown Sgt.), all used excessive
use of force on me. They forced me to come out of my cell without shoes and walk
down on base barefoot. When I refused to put on these shoes previously worn by
another prisoner who I know previously had the same shoes and showered in them,
I was suddenly taken into 1 unit Vestibule area a blind spot and was forced to the
ground. They then began beating & attacking me. There was suddenly an enormous
amount flurry’s of punches came from everywhere hitting me all over. I was struck
in the face, ribs, stomach, legs. I was picked up by my jaw line. After this
stopped/ended. I was dragged outside where they all continued to use excessive
force by picking me up forcefully by my jaw-line. I was now being choked I thought
this was the end of my life. Staff had there hands around my neck. I couldn’t breath.
I was taken to the IBC Property Room. where they had Transportation who was
awaiting me. I was being continuously hit, struck & punched. Staff struck me, staff
was bending my legs. While inside the property room, I was struck in the face
multiple times, staff was bending my arms as well. after placing me in the cage.
This bending my arm was in a downward motion, & position pulling it. All of these
acts were in fact caught on camera. I would like for the camera footage to be
scrubbed & reviewed for fact checking, and truthfulness in order for me to be able
to filing my legitimate complaint. These acts happened and occurred between 8:00-
8:30 A.M. Est.
(Id.) Plaintiff’s deposition testimony tracked his written statement (Sanders Dep. Tr., ECF No. 22-
3, PageID.103–116.) Thus, there is sworn testimony from Plaintiff in the record that cannot be
reconciled with the verified testimony of Defendant Piggott.
But Defendant Piggott’s declaration did not end with his own recollection of the
event. He also reviewed the surveillance video recording of the entire escort:
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of
13

5
7. Video of Sanders’ staff resistance and escort to the Property Room on April 18,
2024, was captured by IBC surveillance video. I have personally reviewed this
video footage which shows the relevant events which Sanders’ allegations are based
upon. I appear in the video footage, and I can confirm that it is a true and accurate
depiction of the relevant events on April 18, 2024.
8. The video footage is date and time stamped and shows the following:
• The video starts at approximately 8:05:40 a.m. Sanders (blue coat with
orange winter hat) is escorted into the pod area of Housing Unit 1, which
is next to the vestibule area. Sanders is escorted by CO Barna (grey short
sleeve shirt and black hat) and me (black long sleeve shirt and black hat).
CO Jensen (black long sleeve shirt with no hat) walks through a door a
places black shoes at Sanders’ feet. CO Jensen attempts to have Sanders
put on the shoes, but Sanders refuses to move. CO Jenson then picks up
the shoes. CO Jensen, on Sanders’ left side, and CO Barna, on Sanders’
right side, place Sanders into a high escort position, and escort Sanders
through a door into the vestibule area, as Sanders makes his body limp and
drags his feet. The high escort position is where one officer hooks his right
arm under the prisoner’s left arm, while another officer hooks his left arm
under the prisoner’s right arm in order to securely escort a resistant
prisoner.
• At approximately 8:06:35, another camera in the vestibule area picks up
the incident with no interruption. Sanders stays limp on his knees and
continues to refuse to walk as he is escorted towards the door leading
outside. CO Jensen attempts to lift Sanders up to his feet, but Sanders
braces to the floor. CO Jensen attempts to use a reverse gooseneck
pressure point technique on Sanders’ left wrist, but Sanders continues to
refuse to stand. CO Jensen then calls for assistance over his radio. Lt.
Fuller (black jacket with short brown hair) and Sgt Camp (black jacket
with shaved head) then arrive. Lt. Fuller talks with Sanders and attempts
to convince him to put his shoes on and walk to the Property Room, to
which Sanders refuses. I then switch places with CO Barna. With Lt.
Fuller’s help from the back, CO Jensen, on Sanders’ left side, and me on
Sanders’ right side, we lift Sanders to his feet into the high escort position,
and escort Sanders through the vestibule door leading outside, as Sanders
drags his feet.
• At approximately 8:10:27, another camera outside near the segregation
vestibule door exit picks up the incident with no interruption. Sanders
continues to refuse to walk and continues to brace his knees to the ground.
A wheelchair is then brought out. Together, CO Jensen, Lt. Fuller, Sgt.
Camp, and I lift Sanders into the wheelchair. Sanders then yelled
threatening to spit at the staff, so I pulled Sanders’ winter hat over his
mouth. CO Jenson then pulls the wheelchair as I lift Sanders’ leg off the
ground.
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of
13

6
• At approximately 8:12:12, another wider view outside camera picks up
the incident with no interruption. CO Jensen continues to pull the
wheelchair as I hold Sanders’ leg from dragging the ground. Lt. Fuller and
Sgt. Camp walk beside the escort.
• At approximately 8:13:32, as we enter the 200 Building, which contains
the Property Room, another camera picks up the incident with no
interruption. The escort proceeds down a hallway as CO Jensen continues
to pull the wheelchair and I hold Sanders’ leg from dragging the ground.
Lt. Fuller and Sgt. Camp continue to walk with the escort.
• At approximately 8:13:56, as we go through a door and enter another
hallway, another camera picks up the incident with no interruption. The
escort proceeds down a hallway as CO Jensen continues to pull the
wheelchair and I hold Sanders’ leg from dragging the ground. Lt. Fuller
and Sgt. Camp continue to walk with the escort.
• At approximately 8:14:09, we go through a door and enter the Property
Room as another camera picks up the incident with no interruption.
Several prisoners are seated waiting to be transferred. Correctional
Transportation Officers (CTO) are waiting by the holding cage modules.
Sanders continues to refuse to walk as he is placed in one of the modules.
The module door is shut and the escort is over.
• At approximately 8:15:14, the video ends.
(Piggott Decl., ECF No. 22-8, PageID.160–162.)
Misconduct Hearings Officer and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sutherland also
watched the video as part of the hearing on Plaintiff’s assault and battery misconduct charge. ALJ
Sutherland stated:
Video shows prisoner in the area behind the bubble. Prisoner refuses to put on a
pair of shoes set on the floor in front of him. The staff hold prisoner on each side
and move prisoner toward the door without the shoes. Prisoner anchors his feet and
refuses to move. Prisoner is moved to a high security position. Prisoner lifts his feet
forcing staff to carry him.
* * *
Prisoner stated, “That I didn’t do any of that.” Prisoner stated he refused to wear
the shoes because they belonged to someone else and were not clean. Prisoner
denied going to the ground. I summarized video surveillance for prisoner. I asked
prisoner if he wished to respond to the video summary. Prisoner replied, “They
were dragging me.” Prisoner stated his feet were dragging because his socks were
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of
13

7
slipping on the floor. I asked prisoner if there was anything else that he believed I
should know or that he wanted me to know. Prisoner replied, “No ma’am.”
After advising prisoner of the decision, sanction, and dates, I asked prisoner if he
clearly heard everything we discussed.
Prisoner replied, “Yes ma’am.”
* * *
ASSAULT AND BATTERY:
Per MDOC PD 03.03.105, Attachment A, Assault and Battery includes physical
resistance or physical interference with an employee. Injury is not necessary, but
contact is. Prisoner denied physically resisting the officer’s escorting him from the
building. I find prisoner’s argument not credible nor consistent with video. Video
showed prisoner anchoring his feet when the officers tried to lead him to the door
without shoes. After moving into a high security position, prisoner then lifted his
feet forcing staff to carry him. Prisoner argued his socks slipped on the floor. Video
contradicts this argument. Video showed prisoner made no effort to stand or walk.
Rather, prisoner allowed his feet to drag along the floor limp. I find that prisoner
physically resisted and physically interfered with the officers escorting him from
the building. Anchoring his feet or refusing to walk and forcing staff to carry him
during a physical escort constitutes Assault and Battery. I find prisoner guilty of
Assault and Battery. The charge is upheld.
(Misconduct Hr’g Report, ECF No. 22-5, PageID.142.)
The Court has reviewed the surveillance video recording. It blatantly contradicts
and utterly discredits Plaintiff’s sworn testimony. The recording is consistent with the descriptions
offered by Defendant Piggott and ALJ Sutherland.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is genuinely disputed when there is
“sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id.
at 249 (citing First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. City Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288–89 (1961)). “Putting
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of
13

8
all of that together, Rule 56 asks ‘whether the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail
as a matter of law.’” DeVooght v. City of Warren, Mich., 157 F.4th 893, 899 (6th Cir. 2025)
(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).
Summary judgment is not an opportunity for the Court to resolve factual disputes.
Id. The Court “must shy away from weighing the evidence and instead view all the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in their favor.”
Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 999 F.3d 400, 410 (6th Cir. 2021). Nonetheless, a court need not
accept bare legal conclusions couched as factual allegations or unwarranted factual inferences in
resolving a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Yanovich v. Zimmer Austin, Inc., 255 F.
App’x 957, 969 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Even under the generous standard of review for a grant of
summary judgment, we do not ‘accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual
inferences.’”).
An opponent of a motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The non-moving party “must present
affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Id.,
at 257. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) identifies the types of affirmative evidence
contemplated: 	“depositions, 	documents, 	electronically 	stored 	information, 	affidavits 	or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Defendants have provided
critical incident reports, misconduct records, verified declarations, and video in support of their
motion. Plaintiff has provided a verified declaration in response. (ECF No. 31.)
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of
13

9
Even when the Court considers the parties’ “verified” statements, the Court need
not accept every “verified” statement as true. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 identifies specific
requirements for affidavits or declarations used to support or oppose a motion for summary
judgment: they “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).
It is also important to note that “[e]ven if Rule 56 commands judges to view the
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it certainly doesn’t require [the court] to
put blinders on.” DeVooght, 157 F.4th at 900. It is clear that Plaintiff’s version of his encounter
with Defendants conflicts with Defendant Piggott’s verified account, but that does not end the
inquiry.
When . . . the parties tell conflicting stories, “one of which is blatantly contradicted
by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt
that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). This applies not only when there is
videotape evidence, but whenever the nonmoving party’s version is “so blatantly
contradicted by objective evidence in the record that it fails to create a genuine issue
of material fact for trial.” Coble, 634 F.3d at 869.
Booher ex rel. T.W. v. Montavon, 555 F. App’x 479, 484 (6th Cir. 2014) (parallel citation and
footnote omitted). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court may not rely on a
party’s version of the facts that is “utterly discredited” by the video evidence “such that no
reasonable jury could believe him.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Rather, the Court
should view the facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.” Id. at 380–81.
“[T]he standard that a movant must meet to obtain summary judgment depends on
who will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Trs. of Iron Workers Defined Contribution Pension
Fund v. Next Century Rebar, LLC, 115 F.4th 480, 488 (6th Cir. 2024) (alteration in original)
(quoting Pineda v. Hamilton Cnty., 977 F.3d 483, 491 (6th Cir. 2020)). “[W]hen the moving party
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 9 of
13

10
bears the burden of proof [at trial], their initial summary judgment burden is higher in that [they]
must show that the record contains evidence satisfying the burden of persuasion and that the
evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it.” Id. at 489 (quoting
Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1056 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted). When the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, they may meet their
initial burden at summary judgment by “either: (1) submitting ‘affirmative evidence that negates
an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim’; or (2) demonstrating ‘to the court that the
nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving
party’s claim.’” Kava v. Peters, 450 F. App’x 470, 473 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 331 (1986) (Brennan, J., dissenting)).The nonmovant must then present
“sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in [their] favor.” Davis v. Sig Sauer,
Inc., 126 F.4th 1213, 1230 (6th Cir. 2025) (cleaned up).
Plaintiff—the non-moving party—bears the burden of proof at trial. The moving
parties, Defendants, must either (1) demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot present evidence to show an
essential element of his claim or (2) present evidence that negates an essential element of Plaintiff’s
claim.
Plaintiff has not responded to the summary judgment motions filed by Defendants.
“The fact that there has been no response to a summary judgment motion does not, of course, mean
that the motion is to be granted automatically.” Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir.
1996). The trial court is required to “intelligently and carefully review the legitimacy of such an
unresponded-to motion” and cannot “blithely accept the conclusions argued in the motion.”
Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 407 (6th Cir. 1992). However, when a
motion for summary judgment is unopposed, “[n]othing in either the Rules or case law supports
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 10 of
13

11
an argument that the trial court must conduct its own probing investigation of the record” to
demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact. Id. at 405.
As set forth below, the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that there
are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendants are Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment Claim
Plaintiff claims that Defendants Jensen, Piggott, and Barna used excessive force
during their escort of Plaintiff from his cell to the property room. The Eighth Amendment prohibits
conditions of confinement which, although not physically barbarous, “involve the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981) (quoting Gregg v.
Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183 (1976)). Among unnecessary and wanton inflictions of pain are those
that are “totally without penological justification.” Id. However, not every shove or restraint gives
rise to a constitutional violation. Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986); see also
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “On occasion, ‘[t]he maintenance of prison security
and discipline may require that inmates be subjected to physical contact actionable as assault under
common law.’” Cordell v. McKinney, 759 F.3d 573, 580 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Combs v.
Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2002)). Prison officials nonetheless violate the Eighth
Amendment when their “offending conduct reflects an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Pelfrey v. Chambers, 43 F.3d 1034,
1037 (6th Cir. 1995)); Bailey v. Golladay, 421 F. App’x 579, 582 (6th Cir. 2011).
There is a subjective component and an objective component to Eighth Amendment claims.
Santiago v. Ringle, 734 F.3d 585, 590 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693,
702 (6th Cir. 2001)). First, “[t]he subjective component focuses on the state of mind of the prison
officials.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383. Courts ask “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 11 of
13

12
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S.
at 7. Second, “[t]he objective component requires the pain inflicted to be ‘sufficiently serious.’”
Williams, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). The objective
component requires a “contextual” investigation that is “responsive to ‘contemporary standards of
decency.’” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). Although
the extent of a prisoner’s injury may help determine the amount of force used by the prison official,
it is not dispositive of whether an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred. Wilkins v. Gaddy,
559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010). “When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause
harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated . . . [w]hether or not significant
injury is evident.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9.
If the record before the Court consisted solely of Plaintiff’s sworn testimony and
Defendant Piggott’s verified declaration, genuine issues of material fact would preclude summary
judgment. But, the record also includes a video recording of the incident and the findings of an
ALJ from a Class I misconduct proceeding. The video reveals that Plaintiff’s account is a work of
pure fiction. The ALJ’s findings simply reinforce what the video reveals.
The video blatantly contradicts and utterly discredits Plaintiff’s allegations. The
video depicts Plaintiff offering escalating physical resistance to Defendants. Defendants respond
with 	progressively 	more 	severe 	interventions 	to 	secure 	Plaintiff’s 	compliance. 	But 	the
interventions appeared to go no further than was necessary to secure Plaintiff’s compliance.
Plaintiff was not beaten, attacked, subject to flurries of punches or blows, hit, stuck, or choked.
There are virtually no “relevant gaps or uncertainties left by the video” that would
permit the Court to view the incident “in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff].” Nash v. Bryce,
157 F.4th 436, 453 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., 30 F.4th 572,
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 12 of
13

13
578 (6th Cir. 2022)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, Plaintiff does also mention
arm and leg bending. But there is no question that Plaintiff strenuously and consistently resisted
Defendants’ effort to escort Plaintiff to the property room. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to
show that Defendants applied force “maliciously and sadistically.” Based on the video, no
reasonable jury could believe Plaintiff. No reasonable jury could find malice and sadistic intent
here. To the contrary, the evidence before the Court supports only one reasonable determination:
that force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
Accordingly, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Jensen, Piggott, and Barna. They are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. The Court will enter an order and judgment consistent with this opinion.
Dated: 	October 13, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01025-RSK ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/13/26 Page 13 of
13