Kropp v. Scott

Background

Matthew Kropp, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer Jeffrey Scott. Kropp alleged that Scott subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by shooting him during a fight with other inmates on March 9, 2017, at Pelican Bay State Prison. Scott moved for summary judgment on the merits and asserted qualified immunity. Kropp did not oppose the motion.

The first fight on the prison yard involved three inmates attacking another inmate, Galvan, who later died. A second fight began shortly afterward on another part of the yard. Kropp said that someone struck him from behind while he was waiting in line, after which he defended himself by punching two inmates who were attacking him. He described the incident as a mutual, unarmed fistfight. He said Scott shot him twice in quick succession, causing injuries that required emergency surgery.

Scott said he saw Kropp and another inmate, Razo, repeatedly punching Ojeda in the head and torso while Ojeda lay on the ground and appeared unresponsive. Scott stated that staff orders to get down were ignored, that ground officers were not responding because they were dealing with the first fight, and that he believed Ojeda faced death or great bodily injury. Scott fired a rifle at Kropp, causing Kropp to stop attacking Ojeda, and then fired at Razo, who continued the attack. The second shot was aimed at Razo but accidentally hit Kropp, according to the court’s account.

Summary-judgment ruling

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 under the law. The court ordinarily must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and may not decide witness credibility. But the court applied the rule that a party’s version of events need not be accepted when video evidence so plainly contradicts it that no reasonable jury could believe it.

The court found that the video was grainy and did not show the very beginning of the fight, but nevertheless plainly contradicted Kropp’s account of a mutual fight and of being attacked by two inmates. The video showed two inmates punching a third inmate who was lying on the ground and did not appear to throw punches. It also showed Kropp continuing to make large swinging punches until the first shot abruptly knocked him backward. The court therefore did not accept those parts of Kropp’s version for purposes of deciding summary judgment.

Eighth Amendment claim

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain on prisoners. For an excessive-force claim involving prison security, the key question is whether the force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead was used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

The court concluded that Scott’s use of force was a good-faith effort to restore discipline. It identified an objective need for force because Kropp and Razo punched Ojeda in the head and torso for at least 47 seconds while Ojeda lay on the ground and did not visibly fight back. The court found that Scott reasonably perceived a serious threat because Ojeda appeared unconscious or defenseless and at risk of great bodily injury or death.

The court also found that efforts had been made to reduce the need for force. Staff ordered the inmates to get down, and Scott issued orders over the public-address system before firing. Kropp and Razo did not comply. Although a less-lethal launcher was available, the court found that it could not reach the inmates from Scott’s position about 200 feet away. The court also found no evidence that Scott had another reasonably available way to stop the attack before serious injury or death occurred.

The court recognized that Kropp was subjected to great force and suffered serious injuries. It nevertheless found a substantial need for immediate force and concluded that the two shots were not maliciously or sadistically intended to cause harm. The first shot stopped Kropp’s attack, and the second was aimed at Razo while Razo was still attacking Ojeda. Because the second shot was not excessive as force directed at Razo, Kropp could not maintain an Eighth Amendment claim merely because he was accidentally hit.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from damages when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right or when the unlawfulness of the conduct was not clearly established. The court held that Scott prevailed on both grounds. It first concluded that the shooting did not violate Kropp’s Eighth Amendment rights. It further held that, even assuming a constitutional violation, a reasonable officer about 200 feet away could have believed that shooting inmates who were repeatedly punching a seemingly defenseless inmate was a lawful effort to restore order.

The court also reasoned that Scott would have qualified immunity even if Kropp’s account—that he was being attacked rather than attacking—were accepted, because a reasonable officer could have believed that shooting at the attackers was lawful even if a shot accidentally struck the person who was being attacked.

Other rulings and disposition

The court did not reach Scott’s argument that Kropp’s claim was barred by the rule from Heck v. Humphrey because the court had already ruled for Scott on the merits and on qualified immunity.

The court denied Kropp’s request for another 60 days to oppose summary judgment. It found that he had not shown good cause, that the request came about three weeks after the already-extended deadline, and that his placement in administrative segregation occurred after the deadline had passed.

The court granted Scott’s motion for summary judgment. It entered judgment in Scott’s favor on the merits of Kropp’s Eighth Amendment claim and on the qualified-immunity defense. Because the federal claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction was rejected, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim and ordered the clerk to close the file.