Carter v. Hewitt

617 F.2d 961 (3rd Cir. 1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an inmate. He claims that he was severely beaten in the course of a routine 'shakedown,' or search, of his cell by three prison guards (Ds). P had been housed in a maximum-security block as a result of his role in an escape attempt a week earlier in which a guard was seriously injured. P sued Ds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ds moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Magistrate scheduled an evidentiary hearing at the prison, at which time P's factual contentions were fully tried. P presented three witnesses and also testified himself. The three witnesses were inmates housed in cells adjacent to or near P at the time of the alleged beating. They all testified that Ds came to P's cell shortly after 2:00 and ordered him out of the cell, and proceeded to beat him with batons, flashlights, fists, and feet. They all testified that they could not see the beating, due to the restricted visibility from their cells, but that they could hear the blows being landed. Two testified that they never noticed any bruises on P as a result of the beating; one testified that he noticed some swelling of P's face. P stated that he was hit on the head three or four times with a flashlight and hit 30-35 times with a baton. He also claimed he was kneed in the face, causing his mouth to bleed. The only visible signs of the beating as early as a day or two later were a swollen lip and some bruises on the back of his neck; all other injuries, he claimed, were covered by his clothes. The story Ds told was very different. All three guards claimed that P had not been hit by anyone in any way. P was shown a letter written by one 'Abdullah' to a fellow inmate at Huntingdon. P admitted that he had written the letter, and also admitted that he had denied writing this same letter when he had been questioned as to its authorship in an earlier prison disciplinary proceeding. D asked P to read the letter. P objected on the grounds of relevance, claiming that the letter had been written six months after the alleged beating. The Magistrate ordered its reading. The letter, which was undated, generally described to its unidentified recipient how to file a complaint charging prison guard brutality. It described a set up with the goal to establish a pattern of barbaric brutal harassment. D suggested that this was a direction to file a false brutality complaint. P claimed that he was only encouraging the filing of a legitimate complaint. The letter was admitted as reflecting on P's credibility and demonstrating a modus operandi on P's part of filing false brutality complaints. The district court adopted the Magistrate’s finding that no beating had occurred and the recommendation of a summary judgment. P appealed. P contends in part that the letter should have been excluded under F.R.Evid. 403.