In Rodriguez v. County, published May 30, 2018, the 9th Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of the plaintiffs after a jury trial in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and Civil Code section 52.1. The jury found that deputy defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by their use of force on inmates during cell extractions, including extensive use of tasers and blows that resulted in broken bones; and that supervisory defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by organizing and supervising the use of force, by observing the use and failing to stop it, or by creating an atmosphere where use of force was tolerated in the jail due to lack of punishment for excessive force.
The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Evidence supported a finding that the deputies who performed the extractions inflicted severe injuries on inmates who were not resisting, and in some cases unconscious. The evidence supported the jury's finding that the use of force violated the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment inquiry includes both an objective and a subjective standard. The objective standard addresses whether the force used was excessive and unnecessary under the circumstances. The subjective standard addresses whether the force used was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. As to the deputies using the force, the law was clearly established at the time (2008) that the level of force used with malicious and sadistic intent violated the Eighth Amendment. Case law determining reasonable use of tasers was not material, because it was decided under the Fourth Amendment, which uses only an objective standard of reasonableness. The law also clearly established that the supervisory officers' actions or omissions under the circumstances violated the Eighth Amendment.
The 9th Circuit also affirmed the extracting deputies' liability under Civil Code section 52.1, the Bane Act. Although violation of the Bane Act requires a showing of the defendant's specific intent to violate the plaintiff's rights, in excessive force cases, including under the Eighth Amendment, the violation does not require coercion beyond that inherent in the constitutional violation. Discretionary immunity under Government Code section 820.2 did not apply, because it does not apply in excessive force cases.
The 9th Circuit rejected the argument that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is excused if the prisoner proves a genuine fear of retaliation for complaints, particularly if the prisoner is required to submit the complaint to an officer who allegedly injured the prisoner. The plaintiffs made the required showing.
The district court proceeded to trial while an interlocutory appeal from denial of summary judgment was pending. While a stay of the trial proceedings during an interlocutory appeal is required unless the appeal is found frivolous, the error was harmless. The appellants failed to identify proper issues on appeal, so the 9th Circuit concluded the interlocutory appeal was harmless.
The 9th Circuit also affirmed the district court's conclusion that a juror was not impliedly biased due to his relatives' actions and organizational affiliations, particularly since the juror was honest in providing information.
Leave a Reply