Anderson v. Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services

CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge, Specially Assigned. We are asked on this appeal whether, upon judicial scrutiny, the administrative removal of William Henry Anderson, Jr. from State service was legally justified. BACKGROUND Anderson had been an employee of the Department of Correction (DOC) for a decade when he was fired. His entire tenure had been spent in a security environment, the last nine years as a correctional guard in the South Wing Segregation Unit of the Maryland Penitentiary which housed the most violent and uncooperative inmates.

He had attained the rank of Sergeant and the classification of Correctional Officer III. He was suspended by the DOC pending charges for his removal for allegedly using excessive force on an inmate, Glen Wooden. Formal charges against him were filed by the Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary and the charges were approved by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. At a preliminary hearing he was barred from the worksite, so his suspension was without pay.

He was notified of the charges by the Department of Personnel (DOP). The DOP was “created as a principal department of the State government” by Md.Code (1957, 1990 Repl.Vol.) Art. 41, § 9-101(a). The head of the Department is the Secretary of Personnel (SOP). Id.

The [SOP] shall be responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for his office. He shall review and shall have the power to approve or disapprove or revise the ¹⁹¹ rules and regulations of all of the boards, offices and agencies within the jurisdiction of the [DOP]. Art. 41, § 9 — 105(b). The SOP is also the head of the State Merit System.

Md.Code (1957, 1988 Repl.Vol.) Art. 64A. All employees of the Maryland Penitentiary ... shall be included in the classified service and subject to all of the provisions of [Art. 64A]. Art. 64A, § 2. “It shall be the duty of the [SOP] to carry out the provisions of [Art. 64A], and to make such rules as he deems necessary or proper to that end.” Art. 64A, § 11. Art. 64A, § 33(d)(1) provides: The [SOP] shall, by rule, prescribe what may constitute cause for removal, but no removal shall be allowed because of the religious or political opinions or affiliations of any employee.

As required, the SOP has promulgated rules and regulations. They are published in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). COMAR 06.01.01.61A permits a classified employee against whom charges have been filed to submit a written appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH was established by act of the General Assembly in 1989 and was codified in the Md.Code (1984) as Title 9, subtitle 16 of the State Government article (SG).

The OAH is “an independent unit in the Executive Branch of State government,” SG § 9-1602, headed by a Chief Administrative Law Judge, SG § 9-1603(a). The SOP may designate an official whose duties and responsibilities are unrelated to the hearing process to conduct a hearing in contested removal cases. Art. 64A, § 36A(c)(3). The OAH statute must be read in tandem with the contested cases provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), formerly codified in Md.Code (1957), Art. 41.

In 1984 the provisions of the APA were transferred to the new State Government article as Title 10, subtitle 2, in revised language but without substantive change. In 1989 the ¹⁹² APA was amended to accommodate the provisions of the OAH statute. An agency may “delegate to the [OAH] the authority that the agency ... has to hear particular contested cases,” SG § 10-207(a)(l), and “may delegate to [the OAH] the authority to issue the final administrative decision of the agency in a contested case,” SG § 10-207(a)(2). Section 10-207(b) spells out the duties of the OAH.

It shall: (1) conduct the hearing; and (2) submit in writing to the parties involved in the administrative action ...: (i) proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law; or (ii) if the agency has delegated the authority to issue a final decision to the [OAH], final findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Chief Administrative Law Judge may designate an Administrative Law Judge (AU) “to conduct hearings in contested cases.” SG § 9-1604(a)(4). “In any contested case conducted by an [AU], the [AU] may” (1) authorize the issuance of subpoenas for witnesses; (2) administer oaths; (3) examine an individual under oath; and (4) compel the production of documents or other tangible things. SG § 9-1605(c). Inasmuch as an agency may delegate to the OAH “the authority that the agency ... has to hear particular contested cases,” the AU is told by the APA through authority granted an agency how the hearing is to be conducted.

SG §§ 10-208 and 10-209 speak with particularity of the evidence which may be offered and considered. Translating the authority of the agency to the AU, SG § 10-210 dictates that the AU shall make a record that includes: (1) all motions and pleadings; (2) all documentary evidence that the agency receives; (3) a statement of each fact of which the agency has taken official notice; ¹⁹³ (4) any staff memorandum submitted to an individual who is involved in the decision making process of the contested case by an official or employee of the agency who is not authorized to participate in the decision making process; (5) each question; (6) each offer of proof; (7) each objection and the ruling on the objection; (8) each finding of fact or conclusion of law proposed by: (i) a party; or (ii) a hearing officer; (9) each exception to a finding or conclusion proposed by a hearing officer; and (10) each intermediate proposed and final ruling by or for the agency, including each report or opinion issued in connection with the ruling. Unless the agency has authorized the AU to make a final decision, the AU may only propose a decision which is subject to review by the agency which then renders the final decision. “The finding and decision of the [SOP] ... shall be final, and shall be certified to the appointing authority and shall forthwith be enforced by such authority.” Md.Code, Art. 64A, § 33(c). SG § 10-214(a) requires that “[a] final decision or order in a contested case that is adverse to a party shall be in writing or stated on the record.” Subsection (b) concerns the contents of the decision.

In relevant part, it provides: (1) A final decision in a contested case shall contain separate statements of: (i) the findings of fact; and (ii) the conclusions of law. (2) If the findings of fact are stated in statutory language, the final decision shall state concisely and explicitly the facts that support the findings. In the case before us, the SOP as the head of the DOP delegated to the OAH only the authority to conduct the hearing on the charges and to propose a decision. The AU ¹⁹⁴ assigned to conduct the hearing proposed that Anderson be reinstated to State service.

The Penitentiary filed exceptions to the proposed decision, and the SOP appointed a designee to conduct a hearing to review the proposed decision of the ALJ. The designee renounced the decision of the AU. She ordered that Anderson be separated from state service. Anderson appealed the order to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City as authorized by SG § 10-215.

The court affirmed the order of the designee for the SOP. See SG § 10-215(g)(2). Anderson looked to Court of Special Appeals pursuant to § 10-216(b). See Md.Rule B2.

We ordered the issuance of a writ of certiorari on our own motion before decision by the intermediate appellate court. Thus it is that the case has wended its way to this Court through the maze of administrative proceedings for the contested removal of a classified employee from State service. There has been complete compliance with the procedural particularities of the gaggle of statutes, rules and regulations; there is no claim of a procedural irregularity. So what is before us is the propriety of the affirmance by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of the final order of the SOP which cost Anderson his job.

THE CHARGES Md.Code, Art. 64A, § 33(b)(2)(i) commands: No employee who has completed his probation may be permanently removed from the classified service except for cause, upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. The Division of Correction (DOC) was established by § 4-105(a) of Art. 41 of the Maryland Code as a part of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Md.Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol., 1992 Cum Supp.), Art. 27, § 673 creates the office of the Commissioner of Correction (COC). The COC “is in sole and active charge of the [DOC] and of its several institutions and agencies, subject only to his responsibility to the Secretary of Public Safety and ¹⁹⁵ Correctional Services and to the Governor.” Art. 27, § 67 1>.

The COC is empowered to adopt and promulgate “reasonable rules and regulations” including those providing for the duties, discipline and conduct of officers and employees of the several institutions and agencies [in the DOC]. Art. 27, § 676. The Maryland Penitentiary is one of those institutions. Anderson was charged with violating a rule of COMAR, four regulations of the DOC (DCRs), 1 and a Post Order of the Maryland Penitentiary, as follows: (1) COMAR 06.01.01.47 paragraphs B, D, L and M; (2) DCR 50-2 IV.A.4, 19a. and 25; (3) DCR 50-6 VI.A; (4) DCR 50-54 V. and VI.; (5) DCR 110-23 IV.A; (6) Post Order 12 VI.N.5.

(1) The SOP prescribed “Causes for Removal” in COMAR 06.01.01.47. It declares: Any employee in the classified service may be permanently removed from his position only for cause and, except in the case of rejection on probation, only upon written charges and after an opportunity to be heard in his own defense, and not because of his religious or political opinions or affiliations or for refusing to contribute to a political fund or render political services. The following shall be sufficient cause of removal, though removal may be for causes other than those enumerated: Paragraph B provides: That the employee has been wantonly careless or negligent in the performance of his duty or has used unwar ¹⁹⁶ ranted or excessive force in his treatment of public charges, fellow employees, or other persons; Paragraph D provides: That the employee has violated any lawful official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction given by his superior officer when the violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in a lower morale in the organization or to result in loss or injury to the State or the public; Paragraph L provides: That the employee has willfully made a false official statement or report; Paragraph M provides: That the employee has been guilty of conduct such as to bring the classified service into public disrepute; (2) DCR 50-2 IV is titled “Procedures.” Section A warns: All employees of the Division must abide by the following rules of conduct established by the Commissioner. All new employees must read this regulation within 24 hours after reporting for duty.

All employees will review this regulation at least annually. Violations of this regulation and the stated rules of conduct, whether through ignorance, carelessness, or willful action, will be considered grounds for disciplinary action, possible criminal action, and/or removal from State Service. Subsection 4 (“Personal Conduct”) commands: Every employee shall conduct him or herself at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Division of Correction. Conduct unbecoming an employee shall include that which tends to bring the Division of Correction into disrepute, or reflects discredit upon the employee as a representative of the Division, or that which tends to impair the operation or efficiency of the agency or employee. ¹⁹⁷ Subsection 19 (“Performance of Duties”) provides in paragraph a: Employees are to perform their duties diligently and efficiently.

Indifference, carelessness or negligence will constitute grounds for disciplinary action. Subsection 25 (“Reports”) cautions: Reports submitted by employees must be clear, concise, factual and accurate. Any report, written or oral, which contains an intentional false statement, omission or misstatement of fact will be considered grounds for disciplinary action. (3) DCR 50-6 VI is headed “Procedure.” Section A reads: Staff having direct responsibility for custody of inmates, when found to be inattentive, careless or negligent in the performance of their duties which contributes to or results in a breach of security, escape, harm to an inmate, employee or the general public by an inmate, shall be disciplined as follows: 1.

First occasion within the current reckoning period— Suspension for 15 days. 2. Second occasion with the current reckoning period-— Discharge from State Service. (4) DCR 50-54 V, under the title “Policy,” declares: The use of force is to be resorted to only after reasonable non-force solutions have failed and only to the extent necessary to control the situation. Any use of force shall be applied in compliance with DCR 110-23.

Section VI is headed “Procedure.” Although the charges do not specify which of the five subsections are intended, they do characterize the violation as “Use of Force,” and it appears that subsection A is applicable. It states: Excessive or unnecessary force used against an inmate, or any other action by an employee which results in serious bodily harm, death or a serious breach of the security of the institution, its staff, inmates, or the general public, or which has the potential for such results, shall ¹⁹⁸ result in the filing of Charges for Removal from State service. (5) DCR 110-23 IV does not prescribe a violation; it only gives the definitions of “Non-deadly Force,” “Deadly Force,” and “Chemical Agents.” Section V, however, titled “Policy and Procedure,” states in subsection A: The use of force is to be resorted to only after reasonable non-forceful solutions have failed and then only to the extent necessary to control the situation. The violation as it appears in the statement of charges as § IV is characterized as “Use of Force.” (6) Post Order 12 is applicable to the Maryland Penitentiary Correctional Staff.

Section II. Its purpose is “[t]o provide a guide to assist officers assigned to the [South Wing].” Section III. “Special Remarks” are stated in § IV: South Wing is a housing unit consisting of inmates assigned to segregation, protective custody, and general population. Extreme caution and strict adherence to procedures should be exercised at all times____ Proper procedures will be adhered to during the movement of inmates housed in this unit. “Procedure” is the subject of § VI. It seems that the incident occurred when Wooden was to be removed from his cell to take a shower.

After compliance with certain preliminary precautions and when an inmate is about to leave the cell to be escorted to the shower room, paragraph N.5 directs: The inmate will then be instructed to face the back wall, place his hands behind his back and position himself to be handcuffed when the door is opened. The door will be opened only enough to allow the assisting officer ample space to place handcuffs on the inmate. After being handcuffed, the inmate will be allowed to exit the cell, wearing his shorts and shower shoes. Post Order 12 is not published generally; it is available only to the Maryland Penitentiary personnel. ¹⁹⁹ THE HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Eleven witnesses testified at the hearing conducted by the ALJ and 24 exhibits were presented; the transcript of the proceeding consumes 551 pages.

The proposed recommendation of the AU listed 31 facts which he found by a preponderance of the evidence “[b]ased on the testimony of witnesses, exhibits submitted at the hearing and documents entered into the record after the hearing.” We set them out verbatim: 1. On January 15, 1991, Sgt. William Anderson was the shift Officer in Charge (OIC) on the South Wing of the Maryland Penitentiary. 2. Sgt.

Anderson was required to make two security check rounds of the South Wing during his shift. 3. During the course of the morning round, Sgt. Anderson saw an inmate being handcuffed outside of his cell which he believed was a violation of Post Order 12 and a possible breach of security. 4. Sgt.

Anderson approached the cell at a rapid pace and saw Correctional Officers Brenda Dorsey and Henry Brandon with inmate Glen Wooden. 5. Officers Dorsey and Brandon had been employed by the Division of Correction for two years and ten months respectively compared with Sgt. Anderson’s ten years. 6. Upon reaching the cell, Sgt.

Anderson noticed that Officer Dorsey was attempting to complete handcuffing the inmate in the front by placing one cuff on the wrist and the other on a crutch. 7. Sgt. Anderson ordered the inmate to return to his cell immediately in an effort to restore compliance with Post Order 12. 8. Inmate Wooden initiated an argument with Sgt.

Anderson and verbally and physically resisted the order to return into his cell. ²⁰⁰ 9. The inmate told Sgt. Anderson that he was a short timer and would get him when he got uptown. This statement was clearly a threat. 10.

The inmate had a history of verbal and physical assaultive behavior. 11. With minor physical pressure, the inmate backed partially into his cell, faced outward and held the crutch by the lower shaft. 12. Officer Dorsey was between Sgt. Anderson and the inmate and facing the inmate. 13.

Officer Dorsey was trying to correct the handcuffing of the inmate when he (the inmate) raised the crutch as if to swing it and hit her. 14. Sgt. Anderson responded to this threat by raising his forearm to divert the blow and grabbed the crutch. 15. Sgt.

Anderson interposed himself between the inmate and Officer Dorsey to prevent her injury. 16. The inmate refused to respond to Sgt. Anderson’s orders to cease struggling and let go of the crutch. They grappled for the crutch and with each other. 17.

During the course of this struggle, Sgt. Anderson and the inmate hit the wall of the cell several times, then the bed and finally rolled onto the floor. 18. Sgt. Anderson lay on top of the inmate pinning his arms to prevent being hit; the inmate intertwined his legs with Sgt.

Anderson’s and both were unable to break the hold of the other. 19. When the scuffle began, Officer Dorsey took the keys from Officer Brandon, closed the cell door and went to call in a “Signal 13” indicating an officer was in confrontation with an inmate. 20. Officer Brandon remained on the scene but did not assist Sgt. Anderson in subduing and containing the inmate. 21.

A response team, including Lt. Wouldridge, came to the cell pursuant to the Signal 13 call. ²⁰¹ 22. Lt. Wouldridge unlocked the cell door, entered and observed Sgt.

Anderson and the inmate in the position described in Finding 19 above. 23. Lt. Wouldridge directed Sgt. Anderson to stand up who then stated he could not because of the intertwinement of his and the inmate’s legs. 24.

Sgt. Anderson did stand up after a response team member untangled their legs. 25. Lt. Wouldridge escorted the inmate to the inmate inhouse medical facility for treatment of his abrasions and other internal injuries. 26.

The inmate’s abrasions and dermal injuries could have been easily caused by the use of minimal force. 27. On January 16, 1991, Sgt. Anderson reported to work with a swollen arm, abrasions, bruises and lacerations, which caused him to seek medical treatment____ He did not report back to work until January 18, 1991. 28. All required incidents and use of force reports were properly filed by participants and observers who were on site at the time of the incident. 29.

The variations in these reports resulted from the difference in recollections of the writers rather than any intent to falsify an official report. 30. Sgt. Anderson was rated overall satisfactory in his annual efficiency rating reports for 1989 and 1990 and superior in the 1988 report. 31. On January 16, 1991, Sgt.

Anderson was suspended pending charges for removal. The AU did not address the alleged COMAR violation but he discussed each of the DCRs charged. As to DCR 50-2 IV.A.4, he said: The facts educed at the hearing do not show that Sgt. Anderson acted in a manner bringing disrepute or discredit upon the Division or himself.

They do show his action reduced greatly the actual and/or probable risk of a breach of security when he came upon Officers Dorsey and Brandon attempting to handcuff the inmate outside ²⁰² his cell while holding a dangerous instrument (crutch). Sgt. Anderson reacted instantly to [a] dangerous situation. He intended to restore conditions to those required by DCRs and Post Orders.

His response reflected favorably on the Division without discredit or disrepute. As to paragraph 19a., he observed: The facts show that Sgt. Anderson acted immediately to restore proper security with the least possible harm to himself, fellow officers and the inmate as warranted by the situation. Sgt.

Anderson did not act in violation of Paragraph 19a. As to paragraph 25, he stated: The facts in this case do not reveal any intentional falsity, omission or misstatement in the required reports. They do show that the variations in the reports arose from natural differences in the recollection of witnesses and participants involved in a traumatic incident. I conclude that Sgt.

Anderson did not act in violation of Paragraph 25. On the charge under DCR 50-6 IV.A, he said: In this case, Sgt. Anderson came upon a situation that was dangerous and a breach of security. The facts show he acted immediately to restore safety, security and order.

Such steps cannot be characterized as negligent, careless or inattentive. Thus, I conclude he did not violate this regulation. He discussed DCR 50-54 V and VI: Sgt. Anderson repeatedly ordered the inmate to return to his cell and only resorted to force after the inmate verbally and physically refused to comply with those orders.

Reasonable force was also used by Sgt. Anderson when he saw the inmate raise a weapon (crutch) to strike Officer Dorsey who stood between them. Sgt. Anderson’s attempt to wrest the crutch from the inmate resulted in their scuffling, hitting the wall, bed and floor.

In a matter of seconds they came to rest in a position where neither party could hit the other, and ²⁰³ the inmate had Sgt. Anderson’s legs entangled so that he could not stand up. Sgt. Anderson acted immediately to protect Officer Dorsey from a blow from the crutch; his swollen forearm attests to his taking the blow himself.

The standoff existing when Sgt. Anderson and the inmate immobilized each other was not a display of excessive or unnecessary force. It was an example of the use of minimum force to contain/control a dangerous situation. Sgt.

Anderson’s actions in this situation do not constitute the use of excessive or unnecessary force. It might be argued that since the inmate was inside the cell, Sgt. Anderson could have retreated from the cell, locked the door and waited for the inmate to surrender the crutch; that was not possible here. The inmate initiated a course of verbal and physical threats, Officer Dorsey was inside the cell and preoccupied with resolving the handcuffing of the inmate.

Finally, the use of no force was precluded when the inmate raised the crutch in an apparent attempt to strike Officer Dorsey. The AU correctly noted that DCR 110-23 IY.A. does not prescribe a violation; it merely defines certain terms. Therefore, the AU dismissed that charge. But, he said: If it is assumed for the sake of argument that the agency intended to refer to Section V, then the same discussion and conclusion set forth under DCR No. 50-54 above is also applicable here; i.e., Sgt.

Anderson did not use excessive force. As far as we can ascertain from the record that was submitted to us, the charge was not amended to show that a violation of § V.A was the intended charge. Regarding Post Order 12, the AU declared: The facts in this case show that Officers Dorsey and Brandon were not following proper procedures in handcuffing the inmate for his shower. Sgt.

Anderson recognized this fact and immediately attempted to restore the ²⁰⁴ proper conditions of security with the minimum force necessary. He noted: “The regulation does not speak to any accommodations for the inmate’s use of a crutch.” He pointed out: The evidence shows that medical authority to use a crutch does not alter basic security procedures if interpreted with a touch of common sense. The Acting Assistant Warden Sanders testified to the above and that if the inmate made a gesture with the crutch, it was completely proper for the Officer to take it from him. We think that the AU covered the COMAR violation even though he did not expressly discuss it.

Based on his findings of fact as applied to the charges, the AU concluded as a matter of law that the DOC did not meet its burden of proving any of the charges by a preponderance of the evidence. The AU declared: [Anderson] did not act so as to bring disrepute/discredit upon himself, the Division or other parties. He used only that force necessary to comply with security regulations. In no sense was this excessive or unnecessary force.

The AU issued the following proposed order: The decision of the Division of Correction to suspend Sgt. Anderson pending charges for removal from State service and their action to remove him from State service is REVERSED. Sgt. Anderson is to be reinstated as of the date his suspension without pay began with all rights, benefits and pay he would have been entitled to from that date to reinstatement.

THE HEARING BEFORE THE DESIGNEE OF THE SECRETARY OF PERSONNEL A hearing on the proposed decision of the AU was triggered by exceptions filed by The Maryland Penitentiary with the SOP. The Penitentiary claimed four errors of law and three errors of fact. It requested that the SOP: A. Reject the Proposed Decision as issued; ²⁰⁵ B. Substitute [the SOP’s] own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; C. Sustain the Charges and each of them____ It suggested a choice of sanctions: D. Remove the employee From state service ...; or E. Demote the employee to CO-II; or F. Substitute a lengthy suspension. The designee of the SOP (SOPD) conducted the hearing.

An employee of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services represented the Maryland Penitentiary, and the Director of Field Services for the Maryland Correctional Unit represented Anderson. The SOPD “reviewed the entire record [including] the taped proceeding of the administrative hearing before the [ALJ].” Upon review of the record and hearing the oral arguments, the SOP “adopt[ed] in part and rejected] in part the [ALJ’s] proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.” The SOPD made these findings of fact: 1. On January 15, 1991, Sergeant William Anderson was the shift Officer In Charge (OIC) on the South Wing of the Maryland Penitentiary. 2. During the course of his morning security round, Sergeant Anderson saw an inmate being handcuffed outside of his cell which was a violation of Post Order 12 and a breach of security. 3.

Upon reaching the cell, Sergeant Anderson noticed that Officer Dorsey was attempting to handcuff the inmate in the front by placing one cuff on his wrist and the other on a crutch. 4. Sergeant Anderson ordered that the inmate’s wrists be cuffed together in front of him. 5. The inmate told Sergeant Anderson that he was a short timer and would take care of him when he “got uptown.” 6. The inmate argued with Sergeant Anderson.

Mr. Anderson ordered the inmate to return to his cell. ²⁰⁶ 7. The inmate backed partially into his cell, facing outward and Officer Dorsey moved into the doorway of the cell to remove the inmate’s handcuffs. 8. Officer Dorsey was between Sergeant Anderson and the inmate and she was facing the inmate. 9. The inmate’s verbal barrage against Sergeant Anderson continued and, with cuffed hands, he swung his crutch. 10.

Sergeant Anderson order Officer Dorsey to step out of the cell and he entered the cell and asked the inmate to surrender the crutch. The inmate refused to let go of the crutch. 11. Sergeant Anderson and the inmate grappled for the crutch and with each other. 12. Sergeant Anderson grabbed the face of the inmate and shoved the inmate into the wall of the cell several times.

Sergeant Anderson got the inmate positioned in a headlock. The two fell onto the bed and then rolled onto the floor. 13. Sergeant Anderson laid on top of the inmate pinning his arms; the inmate intertwined his legs with Sergeant Anderson’s and both were unable to break the hold of the other. 14. When the scuffle began, Officer Dorsey took the keys from Officer Brandon, and went to call in a “Signal 13” indicating an officer was in confrontation with an inmate. 15.

Officer Brandon remained on the scene but did not assist Sergeant Anderson in subduing the inmate. 16. A response team reported to the cell pursuant to the Signal 13 call. 17. Lt. Wouldridge entered the cell and observed Sergeant Anderson and the inmate in the position described in Finding # 13 above. 18.

Sergeant Anderson stood up after a response team member freed his legs. ²⁰⁷ 19. Lt. Wouldridge escorted the inmate to the in-house medical facility for treatment of his injuries. The inmate was treated for abrasions and skin lacerations on his face and back. 20.

The inmate was handcuffed in front throughout the entire incident. 21. The inmate had a history of verbal and physical assaultive behavior. 22. On January 16, 1991, Sergeant Anderson reported to work with a swollen arm, abrasions, bruises and lacerations, which caused him to seek medical treatment.... He did not report back to work until January 18, 1991. 23.

All required incident and use of force reports were filed by the participants and observers