Response to motion for summary judgment - Kentucky.com

conspired with other Detention Center guards to beat prisoners and then to falsify incident reports
by including “code language” justifying those beatings.
In light of this evidence, plaintiff ... is not asking the finder of fact to speculate about
the cause of [Gerald’s broken ribs and bruises] (as the [defendants] have contended)
but rather is asking the fact finder to infer causation, logically, from undisputed facts
and competent evidence. Such inferences are often necessary when the plaintiff’s
sole eyewitness is dead. Similarly, the fact that the available eyewitnesses support
the defendants’ account of things does not preclude the possibility of genuine factual
questions. The sheer number of witnesses mustered by each side is not a relevant
consideration, and cases may always be proven by circumstantial evidence where
direct evidence is unavailable. Were it otherwise, a plaintiff might never prevail on
an excessive force claim where the victim is dead and the defendant ... is the sole
living eyewitness.
Abdullahi, 423 F.3d at 772 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has set forth sufficient evidence to defeat the Government Defendants’ request for
summary judgment on the excessive force claims against Clarence McCoy and Maria Jones. There
are serious, genuine issues of material fact that require a determination by a jury. Plaintiff is entitled
to a jury trial, and Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order providing Plaintiff
with just that.
38