Narcisse v. Tafesse

Background

Djoliba Narcisse moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order granting summary judgment to Defendants Ezra Tafesse, Vasquez, and Kim on Narcisse’s Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim. The earlier order denied summary judgment on Narcisse’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force and unreasonable-search-and-seizure claims. The reconsideration motion was limited to the deliberate-indifference claim.

The parties disputed what happened on January 29, 2012, at the Hercules Police Department. Narcisse alleged that officers restrained and struck him during a blood draw, that he suffered an asthma attack, and that defendants denied his requests for medical attention. Defendants alleged that Narcisse was verbally and physically noncompliant, that they restrained him only as much as necessary to complete the blood draw, and that he sustained a small bruise and cut.

Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration of an order may be appropriate because of newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court found that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Gordon v. County of Orange created an intervening change because it replaced the previously used subjective standard for evaluating deliberate-indifference claims by pretrial detainees with an objective standard.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that Narcisse should have brought Gordon to the court’s attention before the earlier ruling. The court noted that Gordon was issued before the summary-judgment ruling, but found it reasonable to consider Narcisse’s failure to raise it earlier because he was representing himself at the time. The court therefore reconsidered the deliberate-indifference claim under Gordon.

Deliberate-indifference claim

Under the court’s description of Gordon, Narcisse had to show that: (1) a defendant intentionally decided the conditions under which he was confined; (2) those conditions created a substantial risk of serious harm; (3) the defendant failed to take reasonable available measures to reduce that risk even though a reasonable official would have recognized the high degree of risk; and (4) that failure caused his injuries. The court held that Gordon changed the required state-of-mind analysis but did not eliminate the requirement to show a serious medical need.

The court concluded that Narcisse had not met that requirement. It determined that the visible injuries— a bruise and a cut—were insufficient to show a serious medical need because the failure to treat them would not result in further significant injury or unnecessary and wanton pain. The court also found that Narcisse’s assertion that he suffered an asthma attack lacked details showing its seriousness or establishing that the alleged denial of medical attention was likely to cause further significant injury or wanton pain. The court noted that Narcisse provided no documentary evidence from his emergency-room visit to support his claim.

The court further held that the objective standard still required conduct approaching reckless disregard, rather than mere negligence. It found that Narcisse had not shown that a reasonable official would have recognized an objectively serious medical need from the limited visible injuries. The court also stated that there was no indication that an average official would have heard and ignored Narcisse’s faint request for medical help.

Disposition

The court did not address Narcisse’s qualified-immunity arguments because it decided the motion on the stated grounds. It denied Narcisse’s motion for reconsideration and declined to disturb the earlier order granting summary judgment on the deliberate-indifference claim.