Bustamonte v. Castillon

Background

Israel Bustamonte, who was litigating without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against T. Castillon, F. Ssempebwa, P. Le, F. Montegrande, L. Muriithi, and Dr. Michael Moeller. He alleged that prison officials used excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs at Salinas Valley State Prison. He sought declaratory relief and damages.

The order addressed the summary-judgment motion filed by Castillon, Ssempebwa, Le, and Muriithi. Bustamonte did not file an opposition, but the court treated his verified amended complaint as evidence opposing the motion. The opinion states that Dr. Moeller filed a separate summary-judgment motion that was granted. Montegrande did not join the motion addressed in this order.

Use-of-force incident

On September 28, 2021, a riot or melee broke out among inmates. Castillon stated that he gave repeated orders to stop fighting and then fired seven foam rounds from a 40-millimeter launcher from approximately 80 feet away, aiming at authorized target areas such as the legs or buttocks or the ground in front of a target. He stated that the launcher was a less-than-lethal weapon used in crowd-control situations and that he stopped using it after inmates complied.

Bustamonte stated that he tried to walk away from the riot and, after hearing an order to get down, turned his back while raising his arms. He said he then lost consciousness and later awoke in an ambulance. He alleged that Castillon deliberately shot him in the face from approximately 30 to 40 feet away. Medical records described head injuries including bruising, fractures, and a laceration; the opinion also states that the injuries caused pain and required treatment, including surgery.

Medical-care claim and exhaustion

Bustamonte’s medical-care grievance described pain, the lack of a soft-food diet, delayed removal of stitches, and the failure to receive surgery or a specialist appointment. The grievance identified Montegrande, Muriithi, and Ssempebwa, but did not mention Le. The prison issued an institutional-level response stating that no intervention was necessary and instructed Bustamonte that he could appeal to headquarters for final review. The defendants presented evidence that he did not submit the grievance for that review.

The court held that the available prison grievance procedures required a headquarters-level appeal before administrative remedies were exhausted. Because Bustamonte did not appeal the institutional decision and did not show that he was prevented from doing so, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact on exhaustion. It granted summary judgment on the defendants’ exhaustion defense as to the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Ssempebwa, Le, and Muriithi. The court did not address the defendants’ other arguments concerning that claim.

Excessive-force claim

For the excessive-force claim, the court applied the Eighth Amendment standard asking whether force was used in a good-faith effort to restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. It considered the extent of the injury, the need for force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force, the threat perceived by officials, and efforts to reduce the severity of the response.

The court found that the riot created a need for force, that repeated verbal orders had been ineffective, and that officials reasonably perceived a serious threat to inmate and staff safety. It also found that Castillon used a less-than-lethal weapon, fired one round at a time after repeated orders, aimed at authorized target areas, continued assessing the situation, and stopped when inmates complied. Although Bustamonte alleged that Castillon shot him deliberately and without reason, the court found that assertion conclusory and unsupported by admissible evidence. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Castillon acted maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to restore order.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Bustamonte’s deliberate-indifference claim against Ssempebwa, Le, and Muriithi was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. His excessive-force claim against Castillon was dismissed with prejudice. Castillon, Ssempebwa, Le, and Muriithi were terminated from the action, and the order terminated Docket No. 70.