Ross v. Palacios

Background

Jayvion Ross, who was incarcerated at the time of the events, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that correctional officers used excessive force against him on April 24, 2021, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that prison officials retaliated against him and denied him due process by issuing a false rules violation report. The court had previously dismissed the retaliation and due-process claims with prejudice, leaving the excessive-force claim.

Ross sought monetary damages and several forms of injunctive relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the claims against defendant Avina and on all requests for injunctive relief.

Summary judgment against Avina

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires incarcerated plaintiffs to exhaust available prison grievance procedures before bringing claims about prison conditions. The court explained that a grievance must alert prison officials to the nature of the wrong and must comply with the prison’s procedural requirements, although a grievance that prison officials fully consider on the merits may be treated as exhausted despite some procedural defect.

Ross’s grievances described officers who allegedly directly assaulted and beat him. None identified Avina. Ross acknowledged in his deposition that Avina was not directly involved in the use of force and that his theory against her was based on her alleged failure to intervene. The court concluded that the grievances’ references to “others” meant additional participants in the assault, not bystanders or supervisors. The grievances therefore did not alert prison officials that Ross sought relief against an officer who was present but did not directly participate in the assault.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Avina for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed Avina from the action without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Requests for injunctive relief

The court granted summary judgment on Ross’s request for an injunction requiring defendants to expunge the April 24, 2021 rules violation report and requiring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to diversify its staff and assign African American correctional employees to the specified prison facility. The court determined that the named defendants lacked authority to provide that relief, and that the officials who might have such authority were not parties over whom the court had jurisdiction.

The court also concluded that expungement was not connected sufficiently to the remaining excessive-force claim. The retaliation and due-process claims concerning the report had already been dismissed, and Ross had not shown that expungement would remedy the injury from the alleged excessive force. The court likewise granted summary judgment on the request to prohibit defendants from issuing false disciplinary reports to inmates who requested to speak with prison supervisors, because that request was unrelated to the remaining excessive-force claim.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Ross’s request for an injunction against excessive force was moot merely because he had been transferred from the prison. The record did not establish that he could not be transferred back. But the court held that Ross had not shown a present or imminent risk of irreparable harm, or that monetary damages were inadequate. It dismissed that request for injunctive relief without prejudice and stated that Ross could seek leave to amend if circumstances changed or discovery showed that damages were inadequate.

Disposition and remaining claims

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Avina without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion. It dismissed with prejudice the requests for injunctions concerning expungement of the rules violation report, false disciplinary reports, and the requested staffing changes. It dismissed without prejudice the request for an injunction against unreasonable and excessive force.

The remaining claims are that Tanori, Palacios, Juarez, Dominguez, Guijarro, Corona, and Hernandez used excessive force against Ross on April 24, 2021, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Ross seeks compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages. The court set a briefing schedule for defendants’ next dispositive motion.