Connsiero v. Barrera-Negrete

Background

Michael Connsero brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliated against him for saying that he would file a grievance, in violation of the First Amendment. He alleged that P. Barrera Negrete directed another officer to harm him, that C. Mares punched him, that other officers failed to intervene, and that the officers applied excessively tight restraints.

The defendants offered a different account. They said Connsero became agitated after a cell search, ignored orders to back up and calm down, grabbed his cane, moved toward an officer, and pulled away from staff. They said officers forced him to the ground, stopped using force after he was handcuffed, and did not make the statements Connsero attributed to them. Connsero did not file an opposition or other response to the summary-judgment motion.

Summary-Judgment Standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court could not grant the unopposed motion solely because Connsero failed to respond; it had to determine whether the defendants’ evidence itself showed that no material factual dispute required a trial.

Excessive-Force Claim

For the Eighth Amendment claim, the court considered whether the officers used force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or instead used force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court relied on video evidence that it found undisputed and that contradicted Connsero’s account. The video did not show anyone saying, “Write us up. Fuck this piece of shit. Fuck him up,” did not show anyone punching Connsero, and showed that Connsero approached staff before the interaction escalated.

The court evaluated the need for force, the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the officers, efforts to reduce the severity of the response, and Connsero’s reported injuries. It found that Connsero appeared agitated, resisted orders, moved toward an officer after grabbing his cane, and pulled away from the guards. The court found that the officers used minimal force to restrain him, perceived a reasonable threat, and repeatedly told him to calm down, back up, and relax. Although the court said the injury factor likely weighed against defendants, it concluded that nearly all of the factors favored them and that no reasonable jury could find that the force was applied maliciously and sadistically. It granted summary judgment on the excessive-force claim.

First Amendment Claim

The court also granted summary judgment on Connsero’s First Amendment claim. It found that the video contradicted his allegation that the officers used force because he said he would file a grievance. The court stated that Connsero never mentioned filing a grievance on the recording and that no officer made the alleged statement. It therefore found no support for the required elements of the retaliation claim, including adverse action because of protected conduct, chilling of First Amendment rights, and lack of a reasonable correctional purpose.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is protection from civil damages for government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established. The court ruled that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Connsero had not shown that their conduct violated a constitutional right. The court added that, even assuming a constitutional violation, Connsero had not shown that a reasonable officer would have understood the defendants’ actions to be unlawful under the circumstances.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for defendants, terminate all pending motions, and close the file.